nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

British Census

Penn

Here are some of the main findings so far:

• Christians down 13 percentage points to 59%.

• Respondents with no religion up 10 points to 25%.

• White ethnic group down five points to 86%.

• Whites in London 59.8%.

• One in three Londoners born in foreign country.

• Muslim population up from 3% to 5%.

Humanist response
The British Humanist Association, which led a campaign to encourage non-religious people to tick the "no religion" box on the census last year, has called the drop in Christians and rise in non-religious "a really significant shift". The BHA's chief executive, Andrew Copson, said:

In spite of a biased question that positively encourages religious responses, to see such an increase in the non-religious and such a decrease in those reporting themselves as Christian is astounding. Of course these figures still exaggerate the number of Christians overall – the number of believing, practising Christians is much lower than this and the number of those leading their lives with no reference to religion much higher.

(The question was "What is your religion?")

Copson added:

Religious practice, identity, belonging and belief are all in decline in this country, and non-religious identities are on the rise. It is time that public policy caught up with this mass turning away from religious identities and stopped privileging religious bodies with ever increasing numbers of state-funded religious schools and other faith-based initiatives. They are decreasingly relevant to British life and identity and governments should catch up and accept that fact.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2012/dec/11/census-data-released-live-coverage

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

Well, you could take the view that inviting people to distinguish between the religion they were raised in and the religion they now identify with might tend to reduce the incidence of people currently identifying with a religion for purely "heritage" reasons - you no longer have to claim (say) a Catholic identity in order to acknowledge and affirm your Catholic background. And it's commonly assumed on this board that many people who identify as Catholic in the Republic do so for this reason.

Similarly, the NI combination of questions will lead to much clearer information about the extent to which changes in religious identification are due to people changing their identification, and which are due to demographic factors (births, deaths, migration).

And because the census forms will identify people who have changed their religious identity, we can cross-match that with data on age, sex, family, etc to get a much clearer picture of who it is that is changing their religious identity.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not wasteful at all! A comparison of the answers to questions 17 and 18 will yield much useful information about the rate at which people raised in religious traditions are abandoning those traditions, and will also yield much useful information about the backgrounds of the cohort of the population who now identify as having no religion. I'd have thought that's the kind of information the non-religious, and advocates for the rights and interests of the non-religious, would be quite keen to have.

You're kind of jumping around with your points here. If the census people worded the questions for the purpose of determining how (or if) people change their religions, then they would be a useful metric as they are written. However you already said in an earlier post:

Peregrinus wrote: »

They don't care what you believe, but they do want to know the community you identify with, and "religion or religion brought up in" is much the best marker for that.

The questions are worded poorly for this desired effect. There are people - protestant, catholic, atheist or otherwise - who want to leave the troubles behind and would prefer to be counted as part of the Northern Ireland community as a whole. These people cannot make their voices heard under the questions they are worded. A simpler, more direct question would be better.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You're kind of jumping around with your points here . . .

You’re right, I am bouncing around a bit.

I guess what I’m saying is this. The authorities ask the questions they do because they reckon that those are the questions best calculated to elicit the data that is relevant to their purposes. I have no basis for saying that their assessment is wrong (and I rather suspect it’s correct).

Independently, I see value in the questions because it elicits data which interests me - which is, basically, a better picture of the growing non-religious cohort in NI society, and of the decline in the various religious cohorts. I think the two questions asked in NI are going to yield a far fuller, rounder picture of this than the one question asked in the Republic. That’s not really the authorities’ object in asking the question; this is, from their point of view, an unintended by-product, but I think it’s still a welcome one. And I doubt that I’m alone.

If I understand your objection rightly, it's that the questions asked tend to reinforce the existing conflation in NI of religious identity and political stance and really, NI would be a much happier place if that conflation were eroded rather than reinforced. I think that’s a fair point. But . . .

1. I think the census authorities would say, look, it’s our job to measure things in NI, not to change them. The confusion between religion and politics in NI may be regrettable but it’s a fact, and it means that information on both religion and religious background is important to us, and we are going to collect that data.

2. Ideally, the census would independently collect data on political stance (and indeed on political background, to measure change in political stance). Then we could measure, rather than simply assuming, the correlation between religious identification/background and political stance. Plus, by asking about them separately we would avoid reinforcing the notion that they are necessarily the same. But, worldwide, very few censuses (no censuses?) do ask citizens their political stance, for the same reason that, worldwide, democracies tend to have a secret ballot. And the considerations which lead census authorities to avoid asking this question in other countries apply in spades in NI. So that’s one ideal that’s not going to be realized.

philologos

Lapin wrote: »

That one jumped out at me more than any of the other findings.

I'm not sure I trust it, though I have yet to read the census.

Why wouldn't you trust it?

From living here it's pretty obvious that a lot of people were born elsewhere.

who the fug

philologos wrote: »

Why wouldn't you trust it?

From living here it's pretty obvious that a lot of people were born elsewhere.

Exactly, nobody in my office was born in the UK

Penn

Lapin wrote: »

That one jumped out at me more than any of the other findings.

I'm not sure I trust it, though I have yet to read the census.

Well, that's London only, which is a huge multi-cultural area and where many immigrants would move to for work, which would include a lot of Irish people too. And even moreso in 2011 when there was a lot of work taking place ahead of the Olympics

doctoremma

Penn wrote: »

Well, that's London only, which is a huge multi-cultural area and where many immigrants would move to for work, which would include a lot of Irish people too. And even moreso in 2011 when there was a lot of work taking place ahead of the Olympics

Yep. I checked the Manchester figures yesterday. Despite a massive student population, the figure for non-UK residents was around 10%.

philologos

Penn wrote: »

Well, that's London only, which is a huge multi-cultural area and where many immigrants would move to for work, which would include a lot of Irish people too. And even moreso in 2011 when there was a lot of work taking place ahead of the Olympics

I don't think the Olympics would have made a huge difference to ethnic makeup and place of birth. London quite naturally is a hugely international city.

Penn

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the Olympics would have made a huge difference to ethnic makeup and place of birth. London quite naturally is a hugely international city.

I agree, it wouldn't have made a huge difference, but would certainly have added to it. I know several Irish people in the construction industry who were over in London the last few years working on the Olympics.

But the figure is relating to place of birth for people living in London, and the number of extra employees for those construction companies definitely added to it. Kind of like weighing a full suitcase, then adding a facecloth and weighing it again. Not a huge difference, but still a reasonably valid one.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Independently, I see value in the questions because it elicits data which interests me - which is, basically, a better picture of the growing non-religious cohort in NI society, and of the decline in the various religious cohorts. I think the two questions asked in NI are going to yield a far fuller, rounder picture of this than the one question asked in the Republic. That’s not really the authorities’ object in asking the question; this is, from their point of view, an unintended by-product, but I think it’s still a welcome one. And I doubt that I’m alone.

You wouldn't be, I certainly agree that its a welcome by product.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I understand your objection rightly, it's that the questions asked tend to reinforce the existing conflation in NI of religious identity and political stance and really, NI would be a much happier place if that conflation were eroded rather than reinforced. I think that’s a fair point. But . . .

1. I think the census authorities would say, look, it’s our job to measure things in NI, not to change them. The confusion between religion and politics in NI may be regrettable but it’s a fact, and it means that information on both religion and religious background is important to us, and we are going to collect that data.

2. Ideally, the census would independently collect data on political stance (and indeed on political background, to measure change in political stance). Then we could measure, rather than simply assuming, the correlation between religious identification/background and political stance. Plus, by asking about them separately we would avoid reinforcing the notion that they are necessarily the same. But, worldwide, very few censuses (no censuses?) do ask citizens their political stance, for the same reason that, worldwide, democracies tend to have a secret ballot. And the considerations which lead census authorities to avoid asking this question in other countries apply in spades in NI. So that’s one ideal that’s not going to be realized.

1) You said it yourself, they aren't just measuring things in NI, they are reinforcing ideologies which a proportion of people may not have. Its not their job to make changes, but its also not their job to ignore changes because of badly interpreted questions.

2) If they cannot ask the question directly, then they shouldn't try to fool people into answering it with only semi-related questions. If they want to know people political affiliations, but want it confidentially, then why not just use the most recent election ballots for that purpose? You have everyone's exact political affiliations, anonymously made, and also arranged into the different constituencies.

Galvasean

The way the question is phrased reminds me of the old, "Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" joke.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they want to know people political affiliations, but want it confidentially, then why not just use the most recent election ballots for that purpose?

There is a lot of strategic voting in NI, eg a Unionist living in an area where their own candidate has no chance might vote Alliance just to prevent SF getting the extra seat. Or a nationalist might vote OUP to deprive DUP of the seat.

Then there is the phenomenon of catholic nationalists preferring to stay in the UK for economic reasons; something that might have declined somehat during the Celtic Tiger era, but which must be very strong again now.
The cultural/religious heritage of a person is something that does not change on a whim, so in a way it is more useful to know than their most recent voting pattern.