I was finally chosen to be in a polling sample. I was elated. I often wonder about polls, and I know plenty of people but so few of them have ever been part of a sample. But this year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) chose my suburb to test run the 2021 Census.

So, dutifully, on 29 October, those in my household answered all the questions we were asked to address. The process was straightforward, easy to follow, and all done online. We were glad to be part of a process which will help researchers and policy-makers to understand the nature and composition of the Australian community.

All except when it came to the question concerning religion. I presume the sample was produced because the Bureau wants to get this right. If so, the questions that are asked about religion must change. Researchers and policymakers need an accurate picture of our religious landscape. Without significant improvement, the Census will give poor quality, confused, and — worse — misleading information. Whether intentional or not, the question elicited information that is necessarily misleading or unrepresentative.

The question on religion provided multiple choice answers organised by “no religion”, denomination of choice, and religion of choice. The initial (perhaps, the default?) position went to “no religion”, which was left in a category of its own and separated by a line before denominations and religions were listed. The religions and denominations seemed to be listed in descending order according to their number of adherents as per the last Census. So Catholic and Anglican were at the top of the list, while others like Hindus and Baptists were further down. Finally, there was a box to indicate any other religion that did not appear on the list.

I find Census information to be most useful and I’m glad that our nation devotes the time, attention, and resources to gathering accurate information about the population. As a person deeply involved in religion, I’m particularly interested in religious statistics — as, I’m sure, are other “religious practitioners”. It is important to measure the steady decline of the old European denominations of Christianity, and the increase in both non-Western, non-Christian religions and “no religion”.

But a partial picture can be worse than no picture at all — especially when the part that is provided comes with the authority and imprimatur of the ABS. Such a partial picture can lead not only to the perpetuation of inaccuracies and outright falsehoods in journalistic reporting (which is far from uncommon when it comes to religion) and polemical lobbying, but also to bad decisions in the area of public policy. Our national life suffers when the make-up of the nation is misrepresented due to sloppy census data collection.

The right question to ask is not which denomination you belong to, but which religion — Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism or Islam. Furthermore, to ask only about Christian denominations ignores important distinctions between, for instance, Sunni and Shi’a within the Muslim community. The way the question was framed, moreover, ignores or elides the reality that within Australia there is a growing number of active Christians who have little to no denominational affiliation or interest.

With 30 per cent of Australians identifying with the description “no religion” in the 2016 Census, it is important to clarify the meaning of “no religion”. So, for example, some Australians claim they are “spiritual” but not religious; others say they are agnostic or largely disinterested in religion; and still others insist they are convinced atheists. Lumping all those who describe themselves as having “no religion” together, while differentiating Christians down to denominations that make up less than one per cent of the population, cannot help but produce a distorted picture of Australian society and the ways it is changing.

It is easy to make a complaint and not offer an alternative, but not particularly helpful. So, let me recommend to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the following:

1. That all options, including “no religion”, be presented alphabetically.

2. That the basic question be divided between:

• Buddhism
• Christianity
• Hinduism
• Islam
• Judaism
• No religion
• Other

3. That one’s belonging to particular religious denominations or sects (including those within Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and so on) and more precise specifications of what one means by “no religion” (atheist, agnostic, no interest, spiritual) be offered as sub-questions beneath these more basic religious groupings.

For the sake of continuity and the discernment of emerging trends, it is important that such questions allow for comparisons from one Census to the next. What I am suggesting would allow such comparisons to be made, but it would also give us a more accurate picture of a vital aspect of Australian society.

As a Christian, I am concerned for the truth. Of course, I would like to see Christianity growing in Australia. But that has to be a reality, and not a wish or a distorted Census report. A picture of reality is what the Census should provide. But at the moment, if the ABS continues with its sample Census, we will not have reality but half-truths and distortions that are impossible to usefully evaluate.

As our society changes and grows increasingly multicultural and religiously diverse, it is vital that the questions we ask about religion keep pace with those changes and not keep repeating anachronistic or unrepresentative categories. The changes that a regular Census shows must change the Census itself. The growth in the number of, say, Muslims and Hindus in Australian society warrants finding out more about their particular religious adherence.

The growth of “no religion” — since being moved from the bottom of the list to the top in the Census — also warrants clarification. At its most basic level, it is important to understand whether this represents a growth in atheism or a rejection of organised religion. Likewise, differentiating between Christian denominations at a time when such differences are diminishing, but leaving the far more differentiated category of “no religion” as a single entity, strikes me as ridiculous. If the “no religion” category has grown over recent decades to nearly one third of the population, it is archaic and anachronistic for the Census itself to remain unchanged.

Phillip Jensen is an author, preacher, and the former Anglican Dean of Sydney. He now works at Two Ways Ministries in Sydney.

ANKARA — US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s planned visit to Turkey got off to a rocky start on Wednesday when Ankara criticised his decision to raise the issue of religious freedom.

Washington’s top diplomat will be in Istanbul next Monday and Tuesday as part of a seven-nation tour that also takes him to France and parts of the Middle East.

The Istanbul leg is notable for an absence of scheduled meetings with any top Turkish officials.

His only planned talks are with Bartholomew I of Constantinople — the spiritual leader of the Greek Orthodox world.

The State Department said Pompeo wanted to “discuss religious issues in Turkey and the region and to promote our strong stance on religious freedom around the world”.

The meeting with the patriarch will come four months after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan converted Istanbul’s emblematic Hagia Sophia monument into a mosque.

Pompeo publically criticised the conversion in July.

The Turkish foreign ministry called Pompeo’s chosen subject matter for the visit “completely irrelevant”.

“It would be more suitable for the US to first look in the mirror and show the requisite sensitivity towards human rights violations in the country such as racism, Islamophobia and hate crimes,” it said in the English-language statement.

Relations between Washington and its strategic NATO ally have run hot and cold during Donald Trump’s presidency.

Erdogan has cultivated close personal relations with Trump and been able to call him up directly to try to influence specific policy decisions.

But Ankara and Washington have also sparred over US support for a Syrian Kurdish militia that Turkey views as a grave security threat.

Erdogan congratulated Joe Biden for his election victory on Tuesday — three full days after it was called by US media.

He followed that up by sending a separate message to Trump a few hours later expressing thanks for his “warm friendship” and saying he stood by his side “no matter how the official election result is certified”.

The Turkish foreign did not explain why none of its officials had planned meetings with Pompeo.

But it noted that its “reaction” to his visit “has been duly conveyed to the US side, together with our advice to focus instead primarily on increasing the cooperation between our countries regarding regional and global matters”.

In an ideal world, I shouldn’t know a politician’s or Supreme Court justice’s religious beliefs. 

I think religion should be a private matter that isn’t used to garner support from voters and other people. 

I especially don’t think taxpayer dollars should be allocated to churches. 

Churches have seen an increase in federal funds

According to NPR, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said President Trump and Vice President Pence “made sure” churches would be included in the Small Business Administration (SBA) providing economic relief.

Under the Trump administration, the federal government has already been providing funds directly to churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations, according to NPR. 

In 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency changed its rules to make houses of worship eligible for disaster aid.

The new SBA program significantly increased federal funding of religious institutions. 

Under the new Paycheck Protection Program, businesses with fewer than 500 employees, including faith-based organizations, are eligible to receive loans of up to $10 million, with at least 75% of the money going to cover payroll costs. 

The loans are largely forgivable, so churches and other houses of worship don’t have to worry about paying all the money back.

Bankruptcy exceptions

According to Associated Press, four dioceses sued the federal government to receive loans, even though they had entered bankruptcy proceedings due to the mounting number of clergy sexual abuse claims. 

The Small Business Administration rules prohibit loans to applicants in bankruptcy. 

However, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico, a now-closed and notorious treatment center for predator priests, prevailed in court, receiving nearly $1 million. 

On the U.S. territory of Guam, well over 200 clergy abuse lawsuits led the Archdiocese of Agana to seek bankruptcy protection, but they received at least $1.7 million.

Pandemic relief

According to Associated Press, the U.S. Roman Catholic Church’s haul of federal aid may have reached, or even exceeded, $3.5 billion, making them among the biggest winners in the U.S. government’s pandemic relief efforts.

So, while according to the Internal Revenue Service, “churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law,” they are receiving billions in taxpayer funds that they are largely not contributing to in the first place.

Meanwhile, many small businesses that do not have mounting numbers of sexual abuse cases and bankruptcy found themselves with a dire lack of aid, causing thousands of businesses across the country to close their doors either temporarily or permanently. 

These bailouts were a gross misuse of emergency aid.

‘In God We Trust’

The phrase “In God We Trust” should absolutely not be the official motto of the U.S., nor should it be printed on our money. 

In 1956, President Eisenhower (R) signed a law making “In God We Trust” the official U.S. motto. The law also mandated that the motto must be printed on all U.S. currency.

In an entry in The Society Pages, Lisa Wade, an author with a PhD in sociology, wrote that the political motivation behind the new official motto was not to appease Christian Americans, but to claim moral high ground over and demonize the Soviet Union.

Wade wrote, “Placing ‘In God We Trust’ on the U.S. dollar was a way to establish the United States as a Christian nation and differentiate them from their enemy.”

But, the U.S. is not a Christian nation. According to Pew Research Center, only 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade.

About 26% of Americans describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” up by 9% since 2009. This means about 85.3 million people in the U.S. do not affiliate with a religion.

Besides the decline of Christianity, a nation founded on valuing a secular government should not be endorsing a deity of any kind in its official national motto.

Instead, we should be using our original de facto motto, “E pluribus unum,” which is Latin for “out of many, one.” This motto was put on the Great Seal by the Founding Fathers. Or, come up with a new one altogether.

‘Under God…’

I also strongly believe the phrase “under God” should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

According to USHistory.org, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a socialist minister named Francis Bellamy. 

Originally, the pledge didn’t have “under God” in it. It wasn’t until 1954 that President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add “under God” to the pledge, an obvious violation of religious freedom.

While no one is forced to say the pledge, it doesn’t make sense for a part of it to be directly citing God, a deity many people in the U.S. don’t believe in. 

On top of that, having God in the pledge directly infringes on the Bill of Rights. 

In the very first amendment, the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

Putting God in the pledge is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Public schooling

The unwilling indoctrination of children into a religion should not be taxpayer-funded, meaning prayer and religious religious rituals should definitely be kept out of public schools. 

Children and their families can practice whatever they’d like in private schools and at home, but following a religion should not be part of what public schools teach.

Political campaigns and religion

Politicians should not make their religion one of their main campaign themes to encourage people to vote for them.

Instead, they should prove they are ethical through their policies and what they plan to do for the country. 

Politicians can, of course, draw upon their religion for guidance, but gaining votes through claiming to be a part of a religion is an exploitation of people’s religions and beliefs.

Religious symbols on government property

In addition to these things, religious symbolism should not be displayed on government property. 

With the exception of someone’s private office, any symbolism of religion on government property violates the first amendment. 

If any religious symbolism is displayed, then symbolism from all other religions should be displayed as well. If this is not the case, then it is discriminatory.

What if it weren’t Judeo-Christianity?

If anyone objects to the principle of separation of church and state, I ask you, would you be okay with your tax money being funneled into a religion you are not a part of? 

Your child being taught a religion that you don’t believe in public school? 

How about religious symbolism from a religion you oppose on government property?

It is easy to turn a blind eye, or even support it, when a religion that is being funded by the government is a religion you’re a part of.

The church and state should not coincide with each other. Politicians shouldn’t be endorsing churches and vice versa. 

Taxpayer money should absolutely not be given to any religious organization, and if the church expects bailouts then they need to start contributing taxes. 

According to the Bill of Rights Institute, Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father, writer of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the U.S., wrote in a letter to a Baptist Church:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”