Internet Dismantling the State Church In Finland 547
An anonymous reader writes "A Finnish secular web site that facilitates electronic resignation from the Finnish state church gained wide attention in the media this week. A gay rights TV panel discussion was followed by thousands resigning from the church. On Wednesday, 2633 people resigned through the web site, which is more than all the resignations in July. The Internet is secularizing the Finnish with increasing speed; over 90% of resignations in Finland go through the site administered and marketed by hobbyists driving Finland towards a secular, non-religious state."
Moral authority (Score:5, Insightful)
And note that what is driving people away is the immorality of the church. Which is ironic, given that the church probably defines itself as the high bastion of morality.
Re:Moral authority (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not ironic as people automatically hold them to higher standards for exactly that reason.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since this exodus was caused by gay bashing it looks more like the morality the church preaches is no longer suitable for the modern times.
Re:Moral authority (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a time in history when people have held the church to a higher moral standard.
The church has been corrupt at least since about 300AD around the time of the Council of Nicea (and it was political before then). You want popes who kill and rape and are hungry for power? You want priests who abuse? You want catamites? You want greed? You want hypocracy? You want genocide? The church has it all. They are the poster boys for the Seven Deadly Sins. Why do you think they call them "Cardinal" Sins? Because all of the Cardinals commit them.
No, brother, the church has never, ever been held to a "higher standard". If anything, people have come to expect that priests will be alcoholic and/or pedophiliac/lazy/arrogant/greedy. It's become a cliche. We're pleasantly surprised when we find one who isn't.
And it's not just the Roman Church. If I say "pastor of a megachurch" what's the first thing that comes to mind? Some hairsprayed, holier-than-though, gay-hating, right-wing prig who gets caught sniffing crank off the butt of some rent-boy.
"Higher standard" my ass.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hell, why stop there? Go back enough and even the messiah was a convicted criminal! When the founder of your religion is more badass than Ron L. Hubbard, I think there's a message in that for all of us(*)
(*) And that message is: Love is a verb... and verbs show action! Xenu, I'm gonna bust you up. I pity the fool!
No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:2, Informative)
> So, people who go about telling how you should go about your life, cannot be held to a higher moral standard?
You're reading what he said backwards. You don't appear to know what "ironic" means..
He's saying it's perfectly normal to hold those with moral authority to a high standard, rather than it being the opposite of what one might expect (i.e. "ironic").
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:4, Funny)
The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
Posted from your bunker in Wako?
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
Maybe people wouldn't have such a problem with Christians and other religious folk if they were out in the world living the way they believe they should even with temptation around them, where otherwise can see them behaving kindly and peacefully and living a wholesome life? You know, kind of like Jesus did?
If the only way you can keep yourself from doing what you consider wrong is to hide from it and pretend it doesn't exist, that doesn't make you good in my opinion, it makes you weak and likely a hypocrite who would jump at the first opportunity given to do whatever it is you consider wrong.
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Informative)
>>The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
> Maybe people wouldn't have such a problem with Christians and other religious folk if they were out in the world living the way they believe they should even with temptation around them
Indeed, the New Testament speaks to this very issue:
I Corinthians 5:9-12
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
The idea being, if someone inside the church is immoral, they should be ostracized, but there is no reason to judge anyone who is not a Christian. Christians are only to judge internally, not externally. Kinda puts the whole right wing gay-bashing, sex-focused BS in it's place doesn't it? The "leave this world" reference meaning that Christians are NOT to isolate themselves at all. So, don't isolate yourselves, and don't judge. Exactly the opposite of the hypocrisy we see today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never said I was mad at Christians. A lot of people are, though, as you can easily see when it comes up around here.
I was raised going to church every Sunday, praying before every meal, etc. I believe the core teachings are great and I believe that there are some very genuinely good people involved in the religion (and every other religion). I also believe there are a lot of people who want to be good, but have imo misinterpreted much of the message and gotten too caught up in worrying about the wrong
A Christian talking about irony? Oh boy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just one example:
A Christian cheats on their spouse and blames it on man's "fallen" nature and leaves crucifix-equipped Jesus to take the heat for it, making their share of his pain that much worse. And they keep doing it because of this "fallen" bullshit. That's mean.
A moral being just plain doesn't do immoral things because these things are immoral and spares crucifix-equipped Jesus (metaphorical or otherwise) that share of pain.
A moral human being would get Jesus the hell off that cross. I know I woul
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is true that homosexuality is wrong
Homosexuality may be condemned in the Bible, but is the Bible correct?
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the question of homosexuality is the only moral question the bible got wrong. The bible condones slavery, stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath, and lots of other bad stuff. A careful reading shows that the bible is just full of stuff that most moral people now find wrong.
Most Christians decide right and wrong the same way atheists do: modern secular liberal thought that since the enlightenment has told us it is wrong to harm other people.
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is the Bible's argument that homosexuality is wrong? Oh, wait, there is no argument. The authors of the Bible just expect us to believe it on faith. And I will not condemn people on such a basis.
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
But the Bible is objectively wrong about a great many things. Perhaps if that weren't the case, people would give your Bible-based arguments more credence.
As it is, I could just as easily quote L. Ron Hubbard to demonstrate the "wrongness" of a great many things that you probably don't see anything wrong with. Both sources have similar credibility.
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is only true that an ancient work of fiction alleges this. Homosexuality is a normal part of human existence. In terms of incidence its slightly more common than, say, red hair - is being ginger also wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
red hair - is being ginger also wrong?
They are red due to being in league with the devil.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Citation needed.
The oldest part of the bible dates from as early as the 13th Century BCE. Quite old, but whether it's ancient depends on your definition of "ancient". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#cite_note-2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While it is true that homosexuality is wrong, so also is lusting after a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married.
Homosexuality isn't morally wrong; Christianity is morally wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
If the reason you don't sin is because you avoid all temptation, and/or because you desire reward or fear punishment in the afterlife, you have accomplished nothing. Christianity fails to be a moral religion because it preaches that kind of pseudo-morality.
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the bible does say that a man sleeping with a man as with a woman is "To'ebah", usually translated as 'an abomination before God' (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) - right after it says that shaving or getting a haircut are To'ebah (Leviticus 19:27), eating fruit from a young tree is To'ebah (Leviticus 19:23), and having sex with a woman when she's having her period is To'ebah (Leviticus 18:19). The Mosaic code also requires children who curse their parents to be killed (Leviticus 20:9), anyone who commits adultery to be killed (Leviticus 20:10), and the daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be burned alive (21:9).
Funnily enough, self-proclaimed Christians who rant on about how the Bible condemns homosexuality are usually clean shaven. Theologically, that's actually fine, since multiple passages in the New Testament say that Mosaic Law (the long list of dos and don'ts in Leviticus) doesn't apply to Christians (Romans 6:14; 7:1-14; Galatians. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Corinthians. 3:7-18). Which is great and all, but nowhere in any of those passages in the New Testament does it say "except for that stuff about men sleeping with men - that's still a no-no".
So pick one - either the Mosaic condemnation of men sleeping with men was tossed out with the condemnation of shaving and the condemnation of eating fruit from a young tree and the requirement to kill your children when they curse you - or all of those things still apply and you're probably committing just as many abominations before God as the average male homosexual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a reason it is called the 'Old' Testament.
You're not paying attention to Jesus (Score:3, Informative)
Matthew 5:17-19:
Jesus said "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, wtill heaven and earth pass away, one 2jot or one 3tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. "
In other words, you eat shellfish... you're screwed.
Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. (Score:5, Informative)
Regarding haircuts (19:27)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), meaning "you shall not"
regarding fruit from a tree (19:23)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), again "you shall not"
regarding sex during a woman's period (18:19)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), "you shall not"
In other words, the word used for homosexual relationships is a completely different word than the one used in any of the passages you mentioned. I would be interested to know where you got your facts.
Regarding the laws that we no longer follow, yes, it does make a good deal of sense. As I pointed out, most of those things are "you shall not"s, ie, the only moral weight of them is what God has applied through the law. When it is called "morally abominable", and that is listed as the REASON not to do it ("...FOR it is an abomination unto the Lord..."), that would indicate that it is not a part of the law that no longer applies, but as something that you dont do BECAUSE it is an abomination-- much like we continue to consider adultury and premarital sex sinful.
The Mosaic Law had a specific purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled, and so no longer applies in the same way. There is, and always has been, a completely seperate moral code that continues to apply--dont steal, dont murder, dont lie, dont sleep with anyone who is not your spouse, and so on, which I am not sure if you would consider part of the Mosaic Law, but are nevertheless still in effect today.
Its actually rather astonishing that you would make such a bold, and completely incorrect, claim-- anyone who wishes to check for themselves can download esword and the hebrew package and check for themselves; or simply check the wording in any OT translation-- if the word "abomination" is used in several places, theres a 95% chance it came from the same hebrew word (thats one of the things they try to maintain in translating).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
download esword and the hebrew package
I prefer Xiphos [xiphos.org]. It's FOSS. Esword will work in Wine though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Gregory House, M.D.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Moral authority (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never seen that in practice. I don't think a church based on RTFM would be very popular. Protestants still go to church and still listen to a preacher give a sermon on what he (or his parent organization) interprets a set of verses to mean.
One of the Catholic Church's arguments during the Reformation was that people needed help interpreting scripture. Now they went further to say that because of this regular people shouldn't have access to the text, which is going too far and does tend to foster the Church's self-serving tendencies. But most people who care about what the Bible says do seek help in interpreting it, and it's opaque enough to allow hundreds of denominations with differing beliefs to flourish.
Sola scriptura looks good on paper, but the fact that the Bible supports wildly different interpretations means it is less clear on many important issues than Luther realized.
Re:Moral authority (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What has the Catholic church got to do with it? This is about Finland, which is not a catholic country.
From the article:
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moral authority (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. This particular incident comes from the fact that the majority of people (according to polls) do agree that equality is a good thing and that gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children.
However, the church disagrees, and because they have a government-given monopoly on defining marriage, there's a bit of a crisis now.
(You can kind of get a marriage-like thing from the government, but it's legally not the same thing.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As a guy who's going to go to church in a few hours, I'm perfectly fine with being married seen as a right. A priest might not want to bless gay unions or find it against his faith, and I'm fine with it too. But since marriage has implication on civil rights and status, no discrimination is acceptable on a political and social level. Religious leader should simply say, I don't care what laws say, marry other sex, and their followers should obey or protest *in the contest of their faith, not because religion
Re: (Score:2)
(You can kind of get a marriage-like thing from the government, but it's legally not the same thing.)
Because of ritual or because of legal content? If its because of ritual then i would say to get over it, as rituals can be remade.
That is the last hold of religion, the performance of rituals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, in Finland it's possible to marry at "maistraatti", which is similar to a city hall. Also the discussion about the church not allowing the gays to marry is slightly misunderstood. The real issue is that Finnish law doesn't allow gays to marry, they allow them to form a "registered union". Registered union is very close to a marriage in all but few issues:
* Ability to adopt children outside of the family. (if there is already a child in the family they can adopt him/her)
* Automatic right to take a new l
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Why do homosexual want to get married?
There are legal and financial advantages to marriage. For example, employee health care benefits often extend to spouses.
> So they can adopt children?
In some jurisdictions, yes (though in the USA single parent adoption is legal and fairly common so that doesn't really apply here).
> ...we just do away with marriage laws and set up a child rearing law.
I agree. Marriage should not be any of the governments business. We already have lots of child-welfare laws
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are there specific instances of the Finnish state church being out of sync with modern morals?
I don't know enough about the specifics but this story seems to imply that they are adopting a position of promoting homophobia. Even amongst those uncomfortable with homosexuality (which I'd say quite a few people are), I think most people would consider actively promoting that sort of prejudice to be immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moral authority (Score:5, Informative)
What really makes the situation funny is the fact that even the Evangelical-Lutheran church itself is pretty divided on the issue. There have been a few (primarily female) priests that have blessed gay couples after they have registered their civil relationship. Also the fact that most of the big religions have the right to issue marriage certificates, but still have the choice to refuse service to anyone they don't deem fit is an issue to some. The biggest issue is the state church (Evangelical-Lutheran) getting funds directly from taxes, which are paid by all members registered to the church. The average payout is 1,5%. They calculated the church lost 1,5 M in tax revenue for next year due to this debate.
Basically, it's the church that opposes giving legitimate status to families already in existence, and because we have a Christian party in the parliament, they're fighting the lefties and the greens all the way. Even getting the current partnership law thru took multiple tries over several terms.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The irony is that the Bible pretty much says Jesus was gay, or at least bisexual. He hung around with half naked young men and lived with one "as a man lives with his wife." It was only later that various saints and popes came along and decided it was bad.
Re: (Score:2)
What's driving people away is the conflict between their moral values and those of the church. Hopefully, this will force the church to re-examine its stance on various issues and improve, resulting in the world getting a tiny bit better.
I've never really understood the obsession with sexuality Christianity seems to have. Homosexuality is
Re: (Score:2)
I've never really understood the obsession with sexuality Christianity seems to have. Homosexuality is mentioned a few times in the Bible in the same context as the evils of eating shellfish and wearing clothes with multiple fabrics, yet religious people ignore the rest and focus all their energy on this one thing. Even adultery, which is condemned far more times, receives nowhere near this much attention.
While we both probably accept homosexuality equally much, I feel like pointing out that it's not just Leviticus (the shellfish part) which condemns homosexuality. Having read the Bible recently, I seem to remember that homosexuality was condemned several times in the old testament and at least once (explicitly) in the new testament. Jesus might even have forbidden it himself FWIW, but I can't say I remember that clearly.
Playing along with the ideas for sexual morality a bit, one should say that two wrongs d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not all are closet gays, but it might as well be more common than in the general population. First, I know that for some priests (can't say for how many in this case, though) it's a case of hoping for vows of chastity helping them to not sin, basically. Secondly, a buddy (himself a gay) who tried to get into monastery claims that at least 1/3rd of brethren (at this one particular monastery) also were.
As for general obsession with sexuality, it's almost certainly a matter of those practices simply
Re:Moral authority ... of what kind? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not too weird if one looks at their god from the perspective of dystheism, maltheism [wikipedia.org] or gnosticism (if only those weren't also suppressed a long time ago as "heretics" - but hey, it's something the Demiurge would want ;p )
Also, one old Usenet posting [google.com] writing about it much better that I could in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe this one [google.com], too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There are two concepts in Christianity that address these issues - Faith and Grace.
Some critics have defined faith as "believing in what you know isn't true." But the essence of faith (in general) is that you'r supposed to subjegate your own ego/reason and trust another. Some people will call this Doublethink, but Faith means not rushing to a judgement based on a usenet posting constructed by a simple Human - God has a bigger plan.
Grace is another concept by which you get to an enlightened state even thou
Re:Moral authority ... of what kind? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignoring of course who supposedly gave us that reason; an act which to fully get appreciated would need now to be... relinquished? OK... (nice how that faith works BTW, simply dispelling taking a broader look at what it holds dear, also just on the basis of where that look is hosted). And yes, congregations and their rituals evolved to induce mystical feelings, we know that. There are much easier ways if you want those.
Yes, people are generally bastards (which is of course the most straightforward reason why their gods and organizations are, too). However, certainly when looking at all the stats of positive societal factors, there is a very strong correlation between them and levels of organic secularism in a given place. BTW I can't speak much about French Revolution or Khmer Rouge, but I had a decently intimate insight into workings of European-area Warsaw Pact - and "strangely" enough, virtually all Party members were closet Christians, their kids baptized, attending services in the country, etc. With general level of religiosity still there and, at most, regimes usually trying to introduce on top of it their new state religions.
(there's another curious correlation BTW - take a look at a world map, take note of places which are historically strongly "old" Christian; now take note of places which had major problems with "communism" - notice any interesting overlap? I suspect it boils down to continuing reverberations of strong feudalism typical of those societies; certainly some sort of continuum - you thinking how it's a case of clear opposition, how it is sensible to use it as such, is another confusion on your part similar to one pointed out by the first of linked usenet postings)
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly the problem of religion. They all promote morals and standards. But it's not the church who make them, it's a group of people. which can be different kinds of people, think of familiy,friends, work, etc. Although their morals and standards will overlap they can change between those groups. Furthermore those morals change over time, the reason why things like slavery is no longer accepted and gay rights are. This is the same reason why over there have been religions before christianity and is
Down with the Finnish Taliban woo. (Score:5, Interesting)
Finland is a secular state, don't let the two state churches fool you. The Lutheran one is basically like the archetypical izzardesque Anglican Church or Unitarian Universalists (we drink more coffee though), and the Orthodox one is just kinda ethnic. Finns go to church for Christmas, weddings and funerals, and stay with the church mainly for those things (and godfathering or godmothering), not for some religious impulse.
I myself resigned from the church a couple years back using eroakirkosta.fi after I started getting the local parish paper... to no avail, they just switched the recipient to my room-mate, who also subsequently decided to resign as well. The process was easy and painless, but don't tell my family: I might have to give back all those Confirmation gifts.
Somehow I dont think its a loss of religious faith (Score:5, Informative)
More likely its that Finns dont want to pay the 1.3% church tax that church members have to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, although I suspect that it also reflects people who left the church years or decades ago in practical terms.
One thing I find amusing about endless American discussions about the separation of church and state is that for many Christians, this is one of our important beliefs. I live in England (specifically England, don't confuse with the UK). We have a state church, the Church of England. Until the 60's farmers had to pay tax (tithes) to the C of E, even if they belonged to non-conformist churches
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Somehow I dont think its a loss of religious fa (Score:4, Insightful)
And how many believers would choose to formally break links with their church for such small (considering the eternity...) savings?
No, those people shouldn't have been counted as members a long time ago. It's just that up to know they didn't care, even despite 1.3% (hey, good for some traditional services)
Cool idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone should do the same for the Catholic Church. There are a great many "lapsed Catholics" who are nevertheless counted as full members in good standing when politicians decide what demographics are large enough to be worth pandering to.
You have to explicitly request excommunication [atheistfoundation.org.au] in order to be dropped from the church rolls, and that's really only the beginning of the process, as they may not let you go without a fight. It would be nice if there were a site that made it easier for those whose consciences no longer permit them to be counted among the Church's numbers to take this first step.
Re:Cool idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds nice but at least here in America the problems mainly come from protestant denominations, particularly southern and midwestern ones...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here in America the problems mainly come from people who believe stupid shit without demanding accountability from the people who told them the stupid shit. The stupid shit certainly isn't confined to one specific religious tradition or denomination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool idea (Score:5, Funny)
"You have to explicitly request excommunication"
Boring. Just make them WANT to excommunicate you. It's much more fun.
Ireland has had this for some time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Ireland has had this for some time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here the Portuguese Atheist Association has posted the instructions on how to send the letter of apostasy. It's not hard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Luxembourg the site to leave church is called www.fraiheet.lu which translates to 'Freedom'.
Re: (Score:2)
the catholic church actually changed their 'canon law' so that defection is no longer available!!
No need for that. According to catholic theological doctrine, baptism is irreversible. ;-),
According to catholicism, once you're baptised, you are in for life (and beyond that
completely regardless of any action that you may undertake. No, not even excommunication
throws you out for good, you just lose some rights within the church system.
some statistics via google stats (Score:3, Interesting)
The latest statistics for those that have resigned via the eroakirkosta.fi service are available at http://mpolla.net/ek/ it's very clear to see a huge spike starting from 14.10.2010 just after the panel discussion mentioned. Myself being an atheist and a Secular Humanist I'm very pleased to see that when the state church made it's view of homosexuals clear, many people decided that they could no longer reconcile being a part of such a close-minded organization. My hope is that this is the "straw that broke the camels back" and will lead to the total separation of church and state in Finland like in Sweden (yes Finland still has a state church)
Base Vs. Stakeholders (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a classic base Vs. stakeholders issue - when the organization (church in this case) fails to represent a view compatible with its base, and so long as it doesn't hold some critical resource away from its base, it will lose that base.
The usual resolution of such disputes is not the organization changing though - it is either a major structural failure of the organization followed by minimal changes, or the organization deciding threaten its base into staying in more harsh terms. This happens particularly often in politics.
Why do organizations tend to act this way? Because they virtually always exist to serve the stakeholders first, and not to serve the base they were designed to represent, whatever their origin. This is based on the idea that one has to serve one's own interest before they can logically be able to serve others - and carries through to individual members decisions to either serve the organizations resource gathering, or suppress others altruistic actions, more often than deciding to actually act altruistically through the organization. In other words, organizations select for selfishness towards the organization, and against other factors like serving those not as much a part of the organization.
So, leave all you want - even if it threatens to destroy the church, as long as the stakeholders can be comfortable with the process, it's just those fickle folks straying from the true path. But the second a true insider nails something to the Church door, then suddenly its something meaningful.
See also most group disputes inside the Democratic/Republican parties - it takes core insiders to cause the party to blink. The base falling apart is just unfortunate noise. Reality ignored all over the place, when it doesn't serve the interests of the core shareholders.
Same thing with most businesses, unions, communes, mutual funds, and so on - they all organize, then tend to find themselves more unresponsive to their base over time.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Base Vs. Stakeholders (Score:5, Informative)
I would also point out that it's a church, by definition it's supposed to represent the will of $deity not the opinions of the general population or its members. In the old testament God drowned the world except for those on Noah's Ark. He obliterated entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins. The argument that it is right because it is popular is quite well contradicted in scripture. There are many references to staying on the narrow path, that to stray and be sinful is easy while to stay true and rightous is hard. That people accept sin as normality is to them only proof the world has become a den of sin again. It is not a reason to question their own beliefs.
Re:Base Vs. Stakeholders (Score:4, Insightful)
..yet the pope pissed on Purgatory, stating that was not in line with the church's modern views.
Sorry, but RyanFenton is right. Faith and belief have little in common with organized religion. Organized religion is about manipulation, not faith.
So church does not equal faith.
But then, I'm against both.
Fees (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing that prevents me from leaving the catholic church in germany is the fee that I have to pay in order to get out. It's 30 (~42$) and a visit to the local court. I don't know if you have to pay a fee in finland.
No fee in Finland. I find it quite strange that an organization could charge a person for leaving it.
Re:Fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Denmark has had a similar site for some time (Score:5, Informative)
The Danish website https://www.ingenkirkeskat.dk/ [ingenkirkeskat.dk] (no church tax dot dk) has been up for a few years. I used it to resign from the church, and got the additional bonus of saving 0,80% income tax. The site says he (it's a one man operation) has saved Danish tax payers DKK 123'535'000 (EUR 16'500'000) so far. His fee is DKK 99 (EUR 13), because in Denmark it has to be done in hardcopy.
Re:Denmark has had a similar site for some time (Score:4, Informative)
You can do the paper work yourself, if you want to. I chose to pay someone else to do it for me, so I have more time to troll on Slashdot.
The EUR 13 includes sales tax (25%, EUR 3.25) and postage times two (to you and to the church, total about EUR 2) and then he has to pay income tax of the remaining EUR 7.75 (around 40%, EUR 3.10), leaving him with something like EUR 4.65.
In Italy... (Score:2)
Church tax?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Living in NZ this astounds me! When I was a kid, mum used to give us coin each (20c, 50c or so) to put in the collection basket at our Catholic church. And I know some of the fundie religions (especially the evil Destiny Church) get all their fools to donate 10% of their income. But an actual church tax - now that's messed up.
I don't think there's such thing as paying to register/deregister at a church either.
Anyway, since I declined confirmation in my teens I'm now a reformed Catholic - an atheist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not only income tax. Also corporations are taxed by the church, regardless of whether the personnel is a member of the church or not. The money is used to maintain graveyards and other infrastructure; including graveyards for people who don't belong to any organized religion.
A question for fellow Finns (please mod up!) (Score:3, Interesting)
First: Posting A/C since I don't want to beg for karma but would really appreciate it if many people see this since I've asked on plenty of Finnish forums but not gotten any good answer.
When I used the site to leave the church, two elderly women rang my doorbell a few days later telling me that "Jesus has something to say to you, young man" to which I replied "tell him to send me e-mail" and shut the door. Half an hour or so later I noticed that they were still standing outside my door and whilst I obviously don't get intimidated by old ladies, I found it quite rude that they did that. Now my question for my fellow Finns is whether any of you have had the same experience? I don't know precisely who they were but obviously presume that they were from the church and suspect that they update their records manually and make such visits every time someone leaves the church. I might add that this happened in the city of Espoo.
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible they were from a sect like the Jehova's witnesses or some such. I get regular visits too. If you tell them firmly you never want to see them again, they write your address down and never bother you again (until you move, they keep track of addresses, not people). If you chat amicably with them, they'll pop by for another visit in a few months or so.
Most of them are quite nice and fun to chat with, but some of them can be downright rude.
Re: (Score:2)
I had some JWs visit about 18 months ago. We had a discussion about the appropriate rendition in Spanish of YHWH, they left some literature promising to come back, and didn't. Maybe they were uneasy about discussing the Bible with someone who knows at least two words of Hebrew.
Re: (Score:2)
In Greece (Score:2, Informative)
More information about leaving the (Greek Orthodox) Church, here [atheia.gr].
Past and future news (Score:2, Interesting)
And in that October_30th (531777) made a good point which I'll quote:
This marginalizes the influence of the more miltant lunatic (evangelical) fringe and enhances the stability of our society. I would go as far as atttributing the complete absence of a credible religious right in Finland to the existence state church.
Those who seek the destruction of the one, monolithic state church should think about what they're wishing for.
I think eventually after majority of the population has excluded themselves out of religious issues, we'll just get the increased number of islamic immigrants and right wing crazies fighting amongst themselves, collecting news headlines and escalating the issue.
a Hot Topic in Belgium too (Score:2, Interesting)
This accountability is a good thing all around (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm personally not religious, but I have no problem with people who are, as long as they don't act stupidly (being an American, this is something I see far too often). When taking a stupid position on a social issue can be observed directly to lead to a giant spike in defection, along with a corresponding giant financial loss, I think this gives the Church of Finland plenty of incentive to reconsider their social policies to keep up with social progress. Basically, they need to keep their customers happy for the money to continue to roll in. When opting out is easy, that just makes their work harder.
I have no doubt that this will be a good thing for the Finnish church in the long run, and it might be a good thing for the Christian religion altogether, because the progress that will be made by the Finns will, with time, possibly trickle into the church teachings in other countries.
10K broken (Score:4, Informative)
As of 14.00 EEST today, 10,000 persons (~0.2% of the population) have left the state church in three days. The pace seems to be somewhat accelerating even.
As far as PR catastrophes go, this is a fairly major one. The average tax paid by a church member is 300€/year, so this means annual losses of at least 3 M€.
Unsubscribe link != atheistic epiphany (Score:3, Insightful)
The Internet is secularizing the Finnish
If the internet is secularizing the Finnish, it isn't through this website, except for by some bureaucratic technical definition. This website is allowing those who had already been secular to easily make an official declaration of such, but it's not like devoted god-fearing true believers are finding this site and saying "you know, this internet form makes a good point. I guess since it's easy to unsubscribe from the church now, I don't believe in God anymore."
Opting out of Islam (Score:3, Informative)
This is starting to be available for exiting Islam. [apostatesofislam.com] There are bus ads for leaving Islam in New York. [refugefromislam.com] In countries that have freedom of religion but a big Islamic immigrant population, like the UK, France, and the Netherlands, this can work. The UK now has a Government Forced Marriage Unit [fco.gov.uk], with services for people forced into marriage by their families. (Guidance of members of Parliament: "Mediation, reconciliation, and family counseling as a response to forced marriage can be extremely dangerous. There have been cases of victims being murdered while mediation was being undertaken.")
Re: (Score:2)
Win what?
Re:judeo-christianism will strike back (Score:4, Funny)
And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Wilson's Nails [nobeliefs.com], etc.
-- Barbie
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids.
You mean if they weren't meddling with those kids?
Re: They Will Be Sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
Right. Because all countries in the world without state religions are moral cess pools.
Are you seriously saying the only thing making you act morally is a demonstrably corrupt organization with a history of brutality?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's some pretty weak propaganda. Did you know there are proportionally more Christians than atheists in prison? The church is evil. We have the law. We have social values. We don't need AIDS-promoting magical crooks to rule us anymore.