In assuming all respondents have a religion, the framing of the question produces acquiescence bias that inflates data — by as much as 11 points, according to a number of surveys — in favour of religious affiliation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Regrettably, the ABS backed down following a media campaign by the Catholic hierarchy — who wanted to keep the question as it was, to ensure comparable data with past Censuses

I do wonder what the problem is when there's a 'No religion' option, though.

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Per the article, without a "no religion" option people will pick the religion of their parents even if they're now atheist. This inflates the christian numbers.

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There already was a "no religion" option, in the last census it was the first checkbox under the question asking what religion you follow.

He does have a point in that the proposed question would have been a more neutral way of determining whether someone is religious, the combination of the implicit assumption in the old question that having a religion is normal and providing an single tick option for selecting common ones probably does make a small percentage say yes that would not in the proposed question. Claims of coercion and human rights abuse though seem a bit over the top and are probably coming more from a dislike of religions (and their political power) rather than a desire for accurate data.

What wasn't mentioned in the article but is something I would consider likely that the main difference with the proposed question might not be from the question itself but from extra effort of writing out a religion name rather than ticking a box - it's a small effort but there'd be a lot of people who just want to go through the questions as fast as possible.

[–] cummytummy@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago

Just my opinion but I think it could be used as a mechanism to eventually remove tax exempt status for churches. “Look at the outsize influence they have in politics while only 20% identifies as Christian” or something like that.