2011 Census enumerator edited 'my religion' when collecting my form

oppenheimer1

Tayla wrote: »

It wasn't a WRONG answer.
It's a voluntary question, the director also said that "If people really want to express their religious affiliation in a particular way, they're within their rights to do so."

It was a wrong answer. The OP stated he answered that way as a protest, not that he was actually Jedi.

The correct answer in his case would have not to give an answer at all or to tick no religion.

It is that simple.

Tayla

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It was a wrong answer. The OP stated he answered that way as a protest, not that he was actually Jedi.

The correct answer in his case would have not to give an answer at all or to tick no religion.

It is that simple.

The directors comments never said anything about actually having to believe in the Jedi religion.
There are no rules to stop people from writing Jedi.

It's that simple.

oppenheimer1

Tayla wrote: »

:rolleyes: Oh come on, that's a bit of a dramatic statement. The Catholic church don't deserve to be considered a religion considering their past actions but yet they are but yet someone tells a little white lie on the census form and they don't deserve to be taken seriously as an individual.....alrighty!

This thread is not about the rights or wrongs of the Catholic Church. This is not a little white lie as you might think, it is lying on an official document. I stand by my remark that liars don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I don't care what she was trying to do, it's against the rules which you seem to be fond of.

Protecting the integrity of the census data is part of the job of the enumerator. The change was made in front of the OP at which point he could have intervened. I do not trust the Ops version of events anyway as he has freely admitted to lying on official documents. He has no credibility.

Well if the government haven't yet adjusted the system to allow for the Jedi response then where the hell have they been? This is gaining momentum worldwide and the UK has assigned Jedi it's own code to enable processing, if the Irish government can't do similar then it's their own fault if they have to manually process forms.

The Jedi response is hand written so automated machine generally cannot be used to process the answer, either here or in the UK. The short code which the UK uses is for the data processing after visual verification.




The census director himself that people who wanted to call themselves witches or Jedi could not be stopped, perhaps the enumerator was asleep during that part of their training because no doubt the question came up![/QUOTE]

oppenheimer1

Tayla wrote: »

The directors comments never said anything about actually having to believe in the Jedi religion.
There are no rules to stop people from writing Jedi.

It's that simple.

There are. The census is meant to be filled out in good faith and truthfully. The OP has stated that the answer was given in protest, not that because he was Jedi. I have already explained to you the correct answer for "protesting". It is that simple.

I would have no problem with him giving the answer as Jedi if he were one, but he isn't. If everyone engages in these "white lies" as you call them, then the census becomes a worthless expensive exercise.

But hey as long as the OP had his fun thats all that matters. To hell with the census and its integrity.

Tayla

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This thread is not about the rights or wrongs of the Catholic Church. This is not a little white lie as you might think, it is lying on an official document. I stand by my remark that liars don't deserve to be taken seriously.

It's a voluntary question, the director said people could write Jedi if they wished.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Protecting the integrity of the census data is part of the job of the enumerator. The change was made in front of the OP at which point he could have intervened. I do not trust the Ops version of events anyway as he has freely admitted to lying on official documents. He has no credibility.

I don't think tampering with forms is protecting the integrity of the census. I don't trust any of the data collected by that particular enumerator because she has been proven to tamper with forms, She also has no credibility.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The Jedi response is hand written so automated machine generally cannot be used to process the answer, either here or in the UK. The short code which the UK uses is for the data processing after visual verification.

The government expected this answer, if they want to make life difficult for themselves when they have a simple solution then that's really their problem isn't it?

15,000 Czechs chose Jedi in their last census, Stanislav Drapal, deputy head of the statistical office said “We included this option despite a fierce debate over whether it’s serious or not. But it’s not up to statisticians to say what is or is not a religion,”

oppenheimer1

Tayla wrote: »

It's a voluntary question, the director said people could write Jedi if they wished.

Of course they could write it if they wished provided it is an accurate description.

Tayla

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There are. The census is meant to be filled out in good faith and truthfully. The OP has stated that the answer was given in protest, not that because he was Jedi. I have already explained to you the correct answer for "protesting". It is that simple.

I would have no problem with him giving the answer as Jedi if he were one, but he isn't. If everyone engages in these "white lies" as you call them, then the census becomes a worthless expensive exercise.

You don't make the rules, the director didn't say you actually had to be a Jedi.This is a voluntary question, Personally I think that the Jedi answer says a lot about peoples thoughts on religion and in particular the Catholic church so the state should consider the changing attitudes of the people .

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But hey as long as the OP had his fun thats all that matters. To hell with the census and its integrity.

It lost it's integrity when they decided to use CICA to conduct it!

Apologies, I have been quoting the UK directors comments as it was printed in the Irish independent with no reference to it being the UK census.

MagicSean

At the end of the census you sign a legal declaration to say you filled the form out to the best of your knowledge and belief. Do you think that someone who rights Jedi as a protest against the catholic church is staying true to that declaration when they are not in fact a Jedi at all.

Tayla

Tayla wrote: »

It lost it's integrity when they decided to use CICA to conduct it!

If this were true then any company using an IBM computer would lack integrity.

As for the rest of your posting, it's all nonsense really. The entire matter here is really quite simple:

1. Do you have a statutory obligation to tell the truth on the Census form? Yes

2. Does the person referred to in the OP actually believe that he is a "Jedi"? No, he admits it was a form of protest only and not a statement of religious belief

3. Does giving a knowingly false answer on a Census form constitute an offence? Yes

4. Therefore, did the OP, who admits to wilfully giving an answer on the Census form which he knew was untrue, commit an offence? Yes

Now, it doesn't really matter if Jedi is more or less of a fairy story than Christianity or Buddhism or whatever. That's a red herring of an argument. It's like arguing over whether it's ok to steal Kit Kats because they're tastier than Mars bars and therefore the temptation is higher. It's an irrelevant consideration. The only actual considerations are the mindset of the person filling out the form and the veracity of the answer.

As for the enumerator, she did not alter the form in secret. She attempted to clarify the answer with the person's knowledge. There was no intent to deceive, unlike the OP, or to further a social agenda, also like the OP, but rather an attempt to do her job properly to ensure the data was as accurate as possible. Enumerators have a terrifically tough job and, while reasonably remunerated, do so under less than ideal working conditions. While her course of action was admittedly beyond her scope of authority it had none of the hallmarks of dishonesty or misfeasance unlike the OP who clearly attempted to abuse a critical social document for his/her own social agenda or amusement.

Jesus Shaves

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If his religion was Jedi then of course he should have put it down. He did state in his OP that he answered the question in that way to register an abstention/protest (against what, who knows?). The fact is he has stated he has a religious belief when he most likely doesn't have one. His lie on the form has corrupted the statistic. The question wouldn't be asked if it wasn't important.

If he is willing to lie and make a declaration of truth for this, can the rest of the data on his form be trusted to be accurate. Sure wouldn't it also be a great protest/laugh to say he was an African traveller with a PhD that lives in a 40 room house?

He should be prosecuted and fined. The census is too important for pricking about and acting the bollocks with. I have a very low opinion of the OP, much lower now that he went to the CSO and possibly lost the enumerator the chance to work on the census again. All for what - the ability to make a false declaration. I hope you're proud of yourself.

In fairness religion is a joke anyway so i reckon he put a perfectly acceptable answer
If you feel that highly about it i think maybe you should report him to the census police

FreudianSlippers

darokane wrote: »

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If his religion was Jedi then of course he should have put it down. He did state in his OP that he answered the question in that way to register an abstention/protest (against what, who knows?). The fact is he has stated he has a religious belief when he most likely doesn't have one. His lie on the form has corrupted the statistic. The question wouldn't be asked if it wasn't important.

If he is willing to lie and make a declaration of truth for this, can the rest of the data on his form be trusted to be accurate. Sure wouldn't it also be a great protest/laugh to say he was an African traveller with a PhD that lives in a 40 room house?

He should be prosecuted and fined. The census is too important for pricking about and acting the bollocks with. I have a very low opinion of the OP, much lower now that he went to the CSO and possibly lost the enumerator the chance to work on the census again. All for what - the ability to make a false declaration. I hope you're proud of yourself.

In fairness religion is a joke anyway so i reckon he put a perfectly acceptable answer
If you feel that highly about it i think maybe you should report him to the census police

As a pastafarian, I take high offence to people making up false religions.

Jesus Shaves

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As a pastafarian, I take high offence to people making up false religions.

I'm also an esteemed member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

MagicSean

darokane wrote: »

In fairness religion is a joke anyway so i reckon he put a perfectly acceptable answer
If you feel that highly about it i think maybe you should report him to the census police

He reported himself anyway. And if you think religion is a joke then tick "no religion". Simple really.

Tayla

Deleted User wrote: »

If this were true then any company using an IBM computer would lack integrity.

Yes, it is true, it's for reasons like that and because of the enumerators actions when she collected my families form that I will write whatever the hell I want on the next census form. That's irrelevant to the issue though.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the rest of your posting, it's all nonsense really.

Nonsense in your opinion Just like yours is in mine.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, it doesn't really matter if Jedi is more or less of a fairy story than Christianity or Buddhism or whatever. That's a red herring of an argument. It's like arguing over whether it's ok to steal Kit Kats because they're tastier than Mars bars and therefore the temptation is higher.
It's an irrelevant consideration.

That comparison doesn't even make sense. It's like you having a shop and telling people it's ok to steal chocolate but only Mars bars because YOU have decided that Kit Kats are not really chocolate.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the enumerator, she did not alter the form in secret. She attempted to clarify the answer with the person's knowledge.

I really don't care if the woman is a saint, this poor woman, the most honest enumerator in the world, all she wanted out of life was to get the most accurate data possible and then the evil OP caused all this drama.
This woman had NO RIGHT to change it. None

Deleted User wrote: »

Enumerators have a terrifically tough job and, while reasonably remunerated, do so under less than ideal working conditions. While her course of action was admittedly beyond her scope of authority it had none of the hallmarks of dishonesty or misfeasance unlike the OP who clearly attempted to abuse a critical social document for his/her own social agenda or amusement.

I know it's a tough job, I wouldn't be able for it myself but it the enumerators job to make sure people receive the forms, fill them in, collect them, check for glaring mistakes (even though most people seem to think they don't actually read them) etc. It is not her job to go around questioning and editing peoples religions, she had no right to do so and essentially tampered with this 'critial social document'

Jesus Shaves

MagicSean wrote: »

He reported himself anyway. And if you think religion is a joke then tick "no religion". Simple really.

As a newly enrolled pastafarian, i can't do that:)

dvpower

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I would have no problem with him giving the answer as Jedi if he were one, but he isn't.

That's not at all clear. The major characteristic (probably the only one) of the Jedi 'religion' seems to be that they mark 'Jedi' on census forms - it's a pretty narrow 'religion' admittedly. If there was an agreed definition of what a religion is, it probably wouldn't make the cut.

Here's what the OP says Jedi means to him.

gj777 wrote: »

To me the Jedi thing is a kind of alternative to a typical vote abstention or vote spoiling, and I should have the right to do that ...right?

If I think of Jediism as a religion whose central tenet is to assert their right to be counted on census forms as 'Jedi' then the OP is a Jedi.

In any case, the Census people have admitted their mistake and apologised and corrected the error. If the Census people are prepared to take the OP on face value, I don't know why other can't.

Census Field Management wrote:

I must apologise for the Enumerators lack of diligence. As a result of your email we have reinstated Jedi as your response on your Census form.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If everyone engages in these "white lies" as you call them, then the census becomes a worthless expensive exercise.

Arguably large numbers of people who mark themselves as Catholic but have little knowledge of the religion and don't practise it are telling white lies. But that's not for me, or a census enumerator to say. Its not for them to test the answer (as has been established). It is for them to record it.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But hey as long as the OP had his fun thats all that matters.

That's misrepresenting the OP. He never said he was doing it for a bit of fun at all. He wanted the right to decide how he was represented on the census form. He made that very clear both here and to the Census people.

gj777 wrote:

I replied and expressed my appreciation for respecting my right to represent myself as I choose.

MagicSean

dvpower wrote: »

That's not at all clear. The major characteristic (probably the only one) of the Jedi 'religion' seems to be that they mark 'Jedi' on census forms - it's a pretty narrow 'religion' admittedly. If there was an agreed definition of what a religion is, it probably wouldn't make the cut.

Here's what the OP says Jedi means to him.

If I think of Jediism as a religion whose central tenet is to assert their right to be counted on census forms as 'Jedi' then the OP is a Jedi.

That's not a religion, it's a political movement. Religion involves the belief in a higher power.

dvpower wrote: »

In any case, the Census people have admitted their mistake and apologised and corrected the error. If the Census people are prepared to take the OP on face value, I don't know why other can't.

The census people have said the enumerator shouldn't have changed the form. They didn't justify the ops flase statement.

dvpower wrote: »

Arguably large numbers of people who mark themselves as Catholic but have little knowledge of the religion and don't practise it are telling white lies. But that's not for me, or a census enumerator to say. Its not for them to test the answer (as has been established). It is for them to record it.

Having been baptised they have a defensable position if they were to be prosecuted. There is no such defense to the answer of Jedi.

dvpower wrote: »

That's misrepresenting the OP. He never said he was doing it for a bit of fun at all. He wanted the right to decide how he was represented on the census form. He made that very clear both here and to the Census people.

The correct way to do that is through political means, not by breaking the law.

dvpower

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not a religion, it's a political movement. Religion involves the belief in a higher power.

For the purpose of the census, Jedi is acceptable as a religion. That has been established by the census people themselves; they have accepted the OPs answer therefore they accept Jedi as a legitimate answer.

MagicSean wrote: »

The census people have said the enumerator shouldn't have changed the form. They didn't justify the ops flase statement.

They changed it back - it seems to me that they don't regard the statement as false at all.

MagicSean wrote: »

Having been baptised they have a defensable position if they were to be prosecuted. There is no such defense to the answer of Jedi.

That is scraping the barrel isn't it. Typically when people are baptised they are way under the age of reason - they couldn't possibly be making rational judgements about what their religion is.
On the other hand, a grown adult, who self identifies as a Jedi....

MagicSean wrote: »

The correct way to do that is through political means, not by breaking the law.

The law has been broken now??? Quick - inform the authorities.
Oh wait. The OP did inform the authorities - they seem to be perfectly satisfied.

MagicSean wrote: »

You think so? It's a very religious country so a jury may not consist of people who find it amusing to have their beliefs mocked.

Again, in what way is identifing as a Jedi mocking other's beliefs?

MagicSean

dvpower wrote: »

For the purpose of the census, Jedi is acceptable as a religion. That has been established by the census people themselves; they have accepted the OPs answer therefore they accept Jedi as a legitimate answer.

It's acceptable if the person follows a set of religious beliefs referred to as Jedi. It is not acceptable solely as a form of protest.

dvpower wrote: »

They changed it back - it seems to me that they don't regard the statement as false at all.

If they changed it back it is because it should never have been changed by the enumerator. He does not have that right.

dvpower wrote: »

That is scraping the barrel isn't it. Typically when people are baptised they are way under the age of reason - they couldn't possibly be making rational judgements about what their religion is.
On the other hand, a grown adult, who self identifies as a Jedi....

If you put Catholic on a form and were charged with lying because you no longer practice, a baptismal cert proves you entered the church and under Canon law you are still a member. So it is clearly a legally defensable position. If you identify yourself as Jedi, when in fact you have no religion, there is very little you can say to defend that claim.

dvpower wrote: »

The law has been broken now??? Quick - inform the authorities.
Oh wait. The OP did inform the authorities - they seem to be perfectly satisfied.

Yes the law has been broken. The op made a flase declaration. It's likely the actions of the enumerator in altering the form would taint any possible prosecution though.

dvpower wrote: »

Again, in what way is identifing as a Jedi mocking other's beliefs?

You or i may not be offended by it but there is a large portion of the population from which juries are taken that may very well consider it an affront.

Tayla

MagicSean wrote: »

If you put Catholic on a form and were charged with lying because you no longer practice, a baptismal cert proves you entered the church and under Canon law you are still a member. So it is clearly a legally defensable position.

Canon law....not real law! That is definitely not a legally defensible position.

MagicSean wrote: »

You or i may not be offended by it but there is a large portion of the population from which juries are taken that may very well consider it an affront.

Someone who isn't tolerant of other peoples beliefs or views should not be allowed to serve on a Jury in relation to something like this anyway.

dvpower

MagicSean wrote: »

It's acceptable if the person follows a set of religious beliefs referred to as Jedi. It is not acceptable solely as a form of protest.

But there is no set of religious beliefs in Jediism. There is no central authority, no leadership and no direction. Jediism is what people want it to be. In fact the First Irish Church of Jediism (that I've just established) specifically instructs followers to make sure they record themselves as Jedi on the census.

MagicSean wrote: »

If you put Catholic on a form and were charged with lying because you no longer practice, a baptismal cert proves you entered the church and under Canon law you are still a member. So it is clearly a legally defensable position. If you identify yourself as Jedi, when in fact you have no religion, there is very little you can say to defend that claim.

Since this is the Legal Discussion forum of boards.ie, not boards.va, Canon law doesn't come into it at all.
The OP could point to the Scrolls of Jedi (that I've just written). They clearly claim all people to be in the Jedi faith. The Scrolls of Jedi have the same legal standing as Canon law.

MagicSean wrote: »

Yes the law has been broken. The op made a flase declaration. It's likely the actions of the enumerator in altering the form would taint any possible prosecution though.

Where is the false declaration? You've already conceded that it's not necessarily false to claim to be of the Jedi religion. We also know that there is no definition of what the Jedi religion is. The OP hasn't admitted to making a false declaration. There is no false declaration.

Tayla

Tayla wrote: »

Canon law....not real law! That is definitely not a legally defensible position.

Have to admire the hipocrisy of this statement from someone who is attempting to defend a position that is legally indefensible

MagicSean

dvpower wrote: »

But there is no set of religious beliefs in Jediism. There is no central authority, no leadership and no direction. Jediism is what people want it to be. In fact the First Irish Church of Jediism (that I've just established) specifically instructs followers to make sure they record themselves as Jedi on the census.



Since this is the Legal Discussion forum of boards.ie, not boards.va, Canon law doesn't come into it at all.
The OP could point to the Scrolls of Jedi (that I've just written). They clearly claim all people to be in the Jedi faith. The Scrolls of Jedi have the same legal standing as Canon law.


Where is the false declaration? You've already conceded that it's not necessarily false to claim to be of the Jedi religion. We also know that there is no definition of what the Jedi religion is. The OP hasn't admitted to making a false declaration. There is no false declaration.

If you were charged with making a false declaration and it went to court, do you think a judge or jury would accept any of that? The declaration states that you have filled out the form to the best of your knowledge and belief. You can joke about it and soapbox all you like but it would be quite easy to prove that someone does not in fact worship a trademark, especially if they cannot even decide on any solid point about the "religion".

The op has stated in the opening post that he did in order to create a spoiled vote of sorts. So he clearly does not worship a Jedi religion. As such he filled out an answer he knew was not true and in doing so broke the law.

MagicSean

Tayla wrote: »

Canon law....not real law! That is definitely not a legally defensible position.

Oh but it is.

Tayla wrote: »

Someone who isn't tolerant of other peoples beliefs or views should not be allowed to serve on a Jury in relation to something like this anyway.

A jury is supposed to be representative of the area it is chosen from. It's not just a selection of nice people.

Tayla

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to admire the hipocrisy of this statement from someone who is attempting to defend a position that is legally indefensible

You believe it is legally indefensible, I wouldn't be so sure about that. You have no proof whatsoever that it is would be impossible to defend.

MagicSean said that the fact that the Catholic church consider someone to be a member under Canon Law because they was baptised means that you clearly have a legally defensible position.

I said that that proves nothing!

What would be hypocrisy would be if I said someone should have to prove they are Catholic but not have to prove that they are a Jedi! I didn't say that, I just pointed out that the example he gave proved nothing.

28064212

MagicSean wrote: »

You can joke about it and soapbox all you like but it would be quite easy to prove that someone does not in fact worship a trademark

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trademarks_owned_by_the_Church_of_Scientology_and_its_affiliates

MagicSean wrote: »

especially if they cannot even decide on any solid point about the "religion".

Yeah, good luck with that. Incidentally, is putting down "Atheist" equally prosecutable? It's not a religion, so it obviously doesn't fall under any definition involving "higher powers" or "spiritual beliefs"

Tayla

MagicSean wrote: »

A jury is supposed to be representative of the area it is chosen from. It's not just a selection of nice people.

If something as ridiculous as that ever went to court, do you know how much press it would get?

The courts would want to make damn sure that they judge and jury chosen were tolerant of all beliefs.

MagicSean wrote: »

You can joke about it and soapbox all you like but it would be quite easy to prove that someone does not in fact worship a trademark, especially if they cannot even decide on any solid point about the "religion".

You cannot prove that someone doesn't worship a 'trademark' as you put it. How the hell would you know what is going on in their head. Let's say for example in cloud lala land that someone did get prosecuted for lying about being a Jedi, that's a prosecution, you haven't proved that they don't believe in it. How could you?

MagicSean

28064212 wrote: »

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trademarks_owned_by_the_Church_of_Scientology_and_its_affiliates


Yeah, good luck with that. Incidentally, is putting down "Atheist" equally prosecutable? It's not a religion, so it obviously doesn't fall under any definition involving "higher powers" or "spiritual beliefs"

But if a person believes they are an Aethiest and put it down then they are telling the truth, if a little misguided as to it's meaning. The op clearly stated that he put it down for the sole purpose of spoiling his answer, so he clearly was not truthful.

Tayla wrote: »

If something as ridiculous as that ever went to court, do you know how much press it would get?

The courts would want to make damn sure that they judge and jury chosen were tolerant of all beliefs.

If the legal system worked like that the whole jury concept with be pointless. Do you honestly think the courts should pick and choose jurors to suit the case? That's beyond ridiculous.

Tayla wrote: »

You cannot prove that someone doesn't worship a 'trademark' as you put it. How the hell would you know what is going on in their head. Let's say for example in cloud lala land that someone did get prosecuted for lying about being a Jedi, that's a prosecution, you haven't proved that they don't believe in it. How could you?

Well for one thing he posted it on the internet. That would be a great start.

Tayla

MagicSean wrote: »

If the legal system worked like that the whole jury concept with be pointless. Do you honestly think the courts should pick and choose jurors to suit the case? That's beyond ridiculous.

It's done elsewhere.

MagicSean wrote: »

Well for one thing he posted it on the internet. That would be a great start.

Is that all you have?

28064212

MagicSean wrote: »

A jury is supposed to be representative of the area it is chosen from. It's not just a selection of nice people.

No it's not. It's a body of people that are supposed to deliver an impartial verdict. A jury member that acts on their personal feelings about a defendant is not acting correctly

MagicSean wrote: »

But if a person believes they are an Aethiest and put it down then they are telling the truth, if a little misguided as to it's meaning. The op clearly stated that he put it down for the sole purpose of spoiling his answer, so he clearly was not truthful.

Incorrect. The OP stated that he put it down as an "alternative to a typical vote abstention or vote spoiling". So the OP believed that Jedi represented his view on religion, even though it's not a conventional religion. Exactly like an Atheist putting down Atheism