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

Dades

The North seems to be the anomaly here, as per this IT article today.

Of course in Norn Iron people have a reason to identify with one religion or another, as it's the general identifier for which side of the fence you stand on.

postitnote

http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/public/pivotgrid.aspx?dataSetVars=ds-2303-lh-37-yn-2011-

NI results here.

The wording of the columns irks me: "Religion or Religion brought up in":mad:

I was brought up Protestant and answered the second question on current religion as "No Religion", i'm atheist, but of course atheism isn't a religion and I had my pedant hat on.

Which column do you think my stats were counted in?

Peregrinus

Nitpick: the figures given relate to data for England and Wales, not for Britain. I don't know if the corresponding Scottish figures have been published yet.

Lapin

Penn wrote: »

• One in three Londoners born in foreign country.

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.

eyescreamcone

I didn't realise it was as close as that in the North.
45% Catholic upbringing
48% Protestant upbringing
It's only a matter of time before Catholics/Nationalists are in the majority.
How soon do you reckon???

doctoremma

Penn wrote: »

Christians down 13 percentage points to 59%.

We've got a lot of "Christians" who don't go to church.

My husband really wanted to put "Jedi" down but, as it was down to me to fill the forms in, I refused. I mean, I love him and everything, but how does anyone think that is cool?

Peregrinus

postitnote wrote: »

http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/public/pivotgrid.aspx?dataSetVars=ds-2303-lh-37-yn-2011-

NI results here.

The wording of the columns irks me: "Religion or Religion brought up in":mad:

It's understandable that it irks you, but you can see that, from a policy and administration point of view, in the context of Norn Irn that's actually the relevant datum. 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.

Lapin

eyescreamcone wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before Catholics/Nationalists are in the majority.
How soon do you reckon???

Hopefully never.

eyescreamcone

Lapin wrote: »

Hopefully never.

The stats would imply that it will happen over the next 20 years- ish

Lapin

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 it's 1-in-6 in Ireland despite us only having about a decade of immigration.

who the fug

Took one look at the census form and threw it in the bin

The British Humanist Association is getting more and more like a religion every day, felt like booting the one who did my fathers funeral up the arrse. 5 minutes preaching about what a Humanist is out of a 20 minute service is rather tedious

Is there any breakdown showing how many attend mass mosque synagogue etc on a regular basis

Peregrinus

who the fug wrote: »

Is there any breakdown showing how many attend mass mosque synagogue etc on a regular basis

Not in the census, no.

The ONS is very clear that the datum which interests them is religious affiliation, not religious practice or religious belief.

There are of course other surveys on things like church attendance, and you'll find them with a spot of googling. But I don't think the ONS measures it at all - they're not interested. And attendance at worship is in any case problematic as a general measure of religiosity, since different religious traditions attach different significance, to it, and some attach little or none.

Lapin

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it's 1-in-6 in Ireland despite us only having about a decade of immigration.

Its one in 4 in my own city (Galway), but that can be attributed to a large multinational, student and bohemian presence.

The more I think about the London stat the more I'm coming to accept it, given the melting pot the place is and my own experiences there.

I just never thought the concentration of foreign born people there would be that high. Especially as most of the London born people I know never venture outside the M25 unless they're on holiday.

Given the population of London, that is a huge number of foreign born residents.

postitnote

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's understandable that it irks you, but you can see that, from a policy and administration point of view, in the context of Norn Irn that's actually the relevant datum. 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.

Agreed, in the context of community that's fine, and I hope it stay's in the context of community. Maybe there are more refined stats to come out. I'd just like to see "Religion brought up in" and "Current Religion" as two seperate column headers.

On a side note, I think that while Catholicism=Nationalism and Protestantism=Unionism is still a fairly accurate measure of things in this country, it's perhaps becoming a fractionally less useful tool. Only very fractionally mind you.

Penn

I liked this line from the Daily Mail:

Norwich is the most godless place in the country, as 42.5 per cent said they had no religion - despite the presence of one of England's most spectacular cathedrals.

"No, I don't believe in any god or gods. I subscribe to science and factual in.... Wow! That's a lovely cathedral. Y'know, maybe I will give this "God"-thing a try."

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's understandable that it irks you, but you can see that, from a policy and administration point of view, in the context of Norn Irn that's actually the relevant datum. 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 religion you were brought up in is not necessarily the community you identify with. It would be better if they just asked "which community do you identify with", if that's what they really wanted to know.

ShooterSF

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I didn't realise it was as close as that in the North.
45% Catholic upbringing
48% Protestant upbringing
It's only a matter of time before Catholics/Nationalists are in the majority.
How soon do you reckon???

I think it continues to do a disservice to people that hold religious beliefs to claim they only do so on the basis of what larger country they want to see N.I belong to. The longer we play up to such a notion the longer people who have a concern about the N.I situation but no interest in religion will falsely self-describe themselves as a member of a religion they are not.

+1 for who ever said the question is pathetic.

ShooterSF

postitnote wrote: »

http://www.ninis2.nisra.gov.uk/public/pivotgrid.aspx?dataSetVars=ds-2303-lh-37-yn-2011-

NI results here.

The wording of the columns irks me: "Religion or Religion brought up in":mad:

That is horrible! So if you are raised catholic and convert to protestant you can legitimately put down either, if you are raised muslim and convert to catholic you can legitimately put doen either and if you are raised scientologist and convert to jedi knight you can put down either but raised as any religion and become atheist and the only legitimate answer is the religion you were raised in as you no longer have a current religion. Way to fudge the answer you want Census people.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The religion you were brought up in is not necessarily the community you identify with. It would be better if they just asked "which community do you identify with", if that's what they really wanted to know.

Possibly, except that's not a question which people will easily understand, or have a ready answer to (unless, perhaps you provide check boxes afterwards which helpfully suggest "Protestant" and "Catholic" as possible answers, which would rather defeat the point of rephrasing the question).

And in the context of a census that's quite a significant issue. The "what religion were your raised in?" question is one which people will understand consistently, and which they can answer easily, and which yields data which is close enough to what the census authorities are looking for to be functionally useful. So that's the question they go for. They're a pragmatic lot in the census department.

You might object that people shouldn't conflate their religious, communal and political identities in this way. And they might privately agree with you in the census department, but the business of the census is not to try to educate people about how they should think. Any attempt to rephrase this question so as to downplay or ignore the religious dimension to communal identity in NI they would, I think, reject as ideologically-driven.

postitnote

From what I recall there were 2 seperate questions asked. The issue wasn't with the questions, but rather how the data from both answers was collated.

The results just seem to give the presumption that Answer A=Answer B and this seems wrong.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly, except that's not a question which people will easily understand, or have a ready answer to (unless, perhaps you provide check boxes afterwards which helpfully suggest "Protestant" and "Catholic" as possible answers, which would rather defeat the point of rephrasing the question).

And in the context of a census that's quite a significant issue. The "what religion were your raised in?" question is one which people will understand consistently, and which they can answer easily, and which yields data which is close enough to what the census authorities are looking for to be functionally useful. So that's the question they go for. They're a pragmatic lot in the census department.

You might object that people shouldn't conflate their religious, communal and political identities in this way. And they might privately agree with you in the census department, but the business of the census is not to try to educate people about how they should think. Any attempt to rephrase this question so as to downplay or ignore the religious dimension to communal identity in NI they would, I think, reject as ideologically-driven.

But without a real figure for religious belief people hold now regardless of how they were brought up there is no notion of how many and where to offer more secular state options. Especially as the question is worded to reduce the answer "No religion", whether on purpose or by accident.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

That is horrible! So if you are raised catholic and convert to protestant you can legitimately put down either, if you are raised muslim and convert to catholic you can legitimately put doen either and if you are raised scientologist and convert to jedi knight you can put down either but raised as any religion and become atheist and the only legitimate answer is the religion you were raised in as you no longer have a current religion. Way to fudge the answer you want Census people.

No, there were two questions on the form. Question 17 asked about your current affiliation; question 18 about the affiliation in which you were raised, so you can give accurate and truthful information on both points.

Peregrinus

postitnote wrote: »

From what I recall there were 2 seperate questions asked. The issue wasn't with the questions, but rather how the data from both answers was collated.

The results just seem to give the presumption that Answer A=Answer B and this seems wrong.

I think the way the data is mostly interpreted is that your political/community affiliation is assumed to be based on your current identification, but if your current identification doesn't give a pointer ("no religion") then it's inferred from the identification with which you were raised (on the basis that ex-Catholics and ex-Protestants still tend to hold characteristically "Catholic" and "Protestant" positions respectively on political questions).

Quite how they "interpret" people who were raised Catholic but are now Protestant or vice versa, I don't know. But the fact is that in Norn Irn such people are vanishingly rare, so they're not going to affect the big picture very much.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, there were two questions on the form. Question 17 asked about your current affiliation; question 18 about the affiliation in which you were raised, so you can give accurate and truthful information on both points.

Fair enough. I'd still likely refuse to answer 18 myself unless they also have a question asking my age and then what age I was at 4, 8, 12 etc. because it would be as much a waste of my ink.

doctoremma

I don't recall answering any questions about which religion (or not) I was raised in...

who the fug

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't recall answering any questions about which religion (or not) I was raised in...

I think you will find that was a special question for Northern Ireland

postitnote

And boy are we special

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd still likely refuse to answer 18 myself unless they also have a question asking my age and then what age I was at 4, 8, 12 etc. because it would be as much a waste of my ink.

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.

who the fug

postitnote wrote: »

And boy are we special

you may say that i couldn't possibly comment

ShooterSF

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.

It might serve some novelty statistics but I can't see any planning benefit from the state or lobby group's perspectives. Maybe I'm missing something though!

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.