Internet Deconstructing State Church in Finland

Agnostic writes "Freethinkers of the city of Tampere, who advocate separation of state and church in Finland, created a Web site in 2003 to assist people in resigning from the church. The Web site soon became a big success in Finland. 39% of all resignations in 2004 went through the web site and 69% of all resignations in 2005. In the same process 22% more people resigned from the church in 2005 than in 2004. The most common reason cited for resigning from the church has been saving church income tax (1.3% on average)."

Comments

Re:Anti-religion

[F_Scentura]

"People aren't being encouraged to seperate the two, they are being encouraged to abandon religion all together. What are the numbers of new enrollment in other religions besides the state run religion, in Finland? I am just saying that if your desire is to seperate church and state, then create a movement to seperate the two. Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive."

So what? There's nothing wrong with that either, if that's their choice. People have been "subversively" trying to missionary for millenia now.

Re:I don't agree

[192939495969798999]

As long as your imaginary friend is saying "DONT kill", I'm cool with it. It's when they switch to saying "DO kill" that I get concerned.

Lemme tell ya somethin' 'bout church and state.

[Rimbo]

Consider Europe:

In the Middle Ages, the states in Europe were relatively weak next to the Catholic Church; the Vatican maintained the Empire Rome had left behind. As individual states became more powerful and less subservient to the Vatican, the idea of a "law higher than the state" remained; this was used to justify England's Magna Carta, the USA's Declaration of Independence, and the French Revolution. In the case of Vatican City, the idea of church as an independent state remains.

Consider Asia:

Marx and Lenin would never approve of the superstitions that continue to dominate Chinese culture after the Communist revolution; yet any religion that dares to become popular is immediately cracked down upon. Why? It's competition to the official state religion, Communism. Even today, China is no more Communist than, say, the United States of America, yet the Church of Mao remains as active as ever -- and remains the state religion.

Every state has its official religion, and every church represents a government with its own laws and enforcement.

Even in the USA, getting back to said Declaration of Independence, the principles behind it need not be defended so much as practiced; as an exercise, walk through the individual grievances against the King listed therein and count how many could apply to the current government of the United States.

Organized religion is either co-opted by a government or competing with it. All governments are theocracies, and all religions are independent states.

The state is a church, and the church is a state.

Given that, what does "Separation of church and state" really mean, anyway?

Re:Lemme tell ya somethin' 'bout church and state.

[Red Flayer]

The state is a church, and the church is a state.

All squares are rectangles and all rectangles are squares?

Adherence to the rules of a state is compulsory; adherence to the rules of a religion is not. This is in the modern, Western, context. The historical role of the RC church as state-builder and kingmaker cannot be denied, but it also cannot be used when discussing the role of religion in re: statehood today, and it especially cannot be extrapolated to other religions.

How is that subversive?

[Sycraft-fu]

How is it any different than trying to get people to join a religion? If you are ok with people who have faith in a particular religious dogma going and trying to convert others to their views, what's wrong with peopel who belive in no religious dogma trying to convert others to their views? Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it. You may not agree, but it's not a carzy viewpoint. It certianly is no more extreme than, say, believing in a virgin birth and reserrection of the dead.

Re:How is that subversive?

[Distinguished Hero]

How is it any different than trying to get people to join a religion?
If it is not, then you are certainly no better than those people (who I assume you do not view in a positive light).

Some people honestly believe that religion is a large source of the world's problems and to truly advance we need to abandon it.
If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement? It certainly has one thing in common with theological statements: evidence collected in the real world does not necessarily agree with it. Consider this: how many people were killed as a result of the Nazi, Soviet, and Maoist regimes in the last 100 years? How many people were killed by "religion" in the last 100 years? Does this not suggest that in a contemporary setting, "political ideology" is far more dangerous than "religion"?

Furthermore, referring to "religion" as some sort of unitary entity that cannot be further decomposed reeks of dogma and either intellectual dishonesty or blatant lack of nuance. Is it not true that Buddhists have killed far fewer people than members of other religions? Yet if we view the world through your ideologically derived model, we miss this distinction. Hence, your model is inadequate at best.

It certianly (sic) is no more extreme than, say, believing in a virgin birth and reserrection (sic) of the dead.
There is a difference between (crazy) personal beliefs, and attempting to impose your (crazy) personal beliefs upon others. Someone believing that magical fairies are responsible for making the Earth go round affects me far less than evangelicals (including atheist evangelicals) running around attempting to coerce others to join their belief system.

P.S. If you have poor reading comprehension and want to reflexively mod me down, consider this: I am not a Christian.

Re:How is that subversive?

[MORB]

My viewpoint is that religion has an inherent positive nature

The point is, that is indeed YOUR viewpoint.

That website doesn't seem to encourage people to officially divorce from religion but merely provide a way to do so. I'm pretty sure that people doing it were not actually religious to begin with. Pointing out to people that they can decide for themselves is NOT encouraging them to leave religion, and is healthy. As opposed to the view that no one should even think or even talk about it that a lot of religious people seem to have.

It's actually asinine that religion always seem to be an opt-out system rather than opt-in. Deciding that someone is of a certain religion by birth is scary. Or even assuming that they share the religious beliefs of the family they were born in.

I'm usually pretty pissed off when my family assume that I'm a christian just because I was christened, for instance.

Let people do their own choices and don't cry foul just because someone points out that you don't HAVE to pretend to share the same religious beliefs (or any at all) as your peers. If you believe that encouraging people to think by themselves is trying to shove an opposite viewpoint to your religion, then I can only assume that your religion is against free thinking.

Re:How is that subversive?

[abigor]

"What's the point of democratic government if not to impose a generally agreed-upon morality?"

What an archaic idea of government you have. Things have moved on since the Middle Ages.

Re:How is that subversive?

[dR.fuZZo]

"If they believe this, then is it not a theological statement?"

I really don't understand how people can take any sort of belief and claim that just because it's a belief, it's a religious statement. I'm not going to try to define "religion," but in my experience, it tends to deal with issues such as: dieties, the supernatural, faith, the creation/destruction of the world, the afterlife. Saying that you believe religion is mucking up the world is not, itself, a religious belief. Just like any old beliefs about the world are not -- just because they are beliefs -- inherently religious.

• I believe there are a lot of Mormons in this town: not a religious statement.
• The evangelicals sure are messing up our educational system: not a religious statement.
• I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth: religious statement.

Re:How is that subversive?

[evil_tandem]

What's the point of democratic government if not to impose a generally agreed-upon morality?

Slightly curde; it does many other things. Regardless, christian dogma has little to do with the modern form of morality/laws our government practices. In the US most of the social advances in society came at a time when society walked away from the christian norm at the time.

Since the majority of the population of the United States is Christian, it seems perfectly appropriate that our elected representatives reflect a Christian morality

Also crude. The problem is what IS a christian morality? So many different sects and so many different beliefs. The secret is figuring out what should be a personal moral choice and what negatively affects the rest of us. No meat on Friday is practiced by some. It's a peronal moral choice, and if a representative took office it is within his rights to continue practicing that. He/she should also be free to go out in his spare time and encourage others to join him/her in that belief. I'm not sure that means he should start creating legistlation forcing the rest of us to do the same.

We practice this give and take everyday in every aspect of society. Religion is inherently intolerant of such leniency. Which is why it doesn't belong in government.

If you think that the government should be entirely devoid of morality

Actually what you are presecribing is anarchy. "Moral" to a government or business is what the law says it can do. You can't go around subjecting them to everyone's whim about what moral is. Nothing would ever be moral to 100% of people. We have laws to define larger social morality. Your personal morality can be whatever you want, but if it violates the larger societal moral code we will come after you.

Re:Anti-religion

[Rob T Firefly]

Unless I'm misreading, this is about resigning from one particular, state-run church which you are born into as a citizen. Are people who follow different faiths "anti-religion" even though they can devote their every waking moment to a religion which doesn't include this particular Lutheran denomination? Read this and get back to us.

Re:Anti-religion

[morgan_greywolf]

Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.

And to create a movement to get people to join a church by proselytizing on the street, door-to-door, in the malls, in the restauruants, in the supermarket, in people's snail mail, in their e-mail, on TV/radio, on the Net, in the newspapers and magazines, and even in ^*(*^&*() public restrooms, for crying out loud is just so much better, isn't it?

I won't be mentioning which religious organizations tend to do this, but they all seem to belong to one religion, at least in the U.S.

Re:Anti-religion

[vidarh]

Getting people to leave the state church IS the most effective way of encouraging the separation of church and state. The most common argument for keeping a state religion is generally that it is the religion favored by the vast majority of people. Encouraging people to explicitly make a point that they do not support the state church makes that argument gradually more and more tenuous.

Apart from your silly assumption that it's somehow automatically bad to get people to abandon religion, your argument is severely flawed: You are assuming that the people who leave the church somehow believed before they left the state church and stopped believing after they left just because they choose not to have the government pick which church they wish their money to go to.

Scandinavia really needs to get rid of the state churches. Most people are members not because they want to, but because they can't be bothered to resign their membership, or don't even know that they are members. In Norway, for instance, a child that is born to a mother that is a member of the Norwegian state church is automatically enrolled as a member, while a child born to a mother belonging to any other religious or secular society must explicitly be added, and similarly a child enrolled in the state church stays a member until he/she decides to resign the membership, while other organizations typically need to get the child to actively "take over" the membership once they reach 15 years.

The result is that the membership of the state churches is in no way an indication of what level of support they enjoy, and is only used as an excuse to justify the differences in government funding. In Norway, for instance, the funding to the state church is decided. Then that amount is divided by the number of "members" of the state church, which is hugely inflated by their membership policy, and the resulting amount is what is granted per member to other registered religious and secular movements.

Getting people to leave the state churches is a way of removing the grossly undeserved preferential treatment they get. Let the people who actually want those churches pay for it.

Re:Anti-religion

[Kadin2048]

Um ... so what?

They're not being "subversive," they're just allowing people to make a cost/benefit analysis for themselves.

The question that's being asked implicitly is: 'Is whatever you're getting from the Church worth 1.5% of your income?' And people -- apparently -- are saying 'no' in droves.

If people had a need for another religion, doubtless they'd find one. If they aren't, perhaps it's because that's not something that they require in their lives.

Re:Anti-religion

[nacturation]

I am just saying that if your desire is to seperate church and state, then create a movement to seperate the two. Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.

Churches have special classes for kids where they teach a watered down puppies and ponies version of religion that is palatable to young, impressionable children. That's quite subversive in my book. And I'm sure I could go on about other subversive religious attempts... "Intelligent Design" anyone?

Re:church income tax?

[plague3106]

And yet the church (any church) talks about how declining membership is a sign of degraded moral and family values.

I see it as people finally waking up and realizing that god is myth, no different than greek legend.

Re:Anti-religion

[plague3106]

Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.

Actually its probably one of the best movements we could get going. Lets abandon myth and start looking at the world logically. And it would be one less thing to use to justify killing each other.

Hmm...

[Y.T.G.]

I wonder ... is paying the church tax helps you advance into heaven?!

Errata

[kahei]

In the Middle Ages, the states in Europe were relatively weak next to the Catholic Church;

Well, it varied; Henry of England managed to start his own competing church just in order to remarry and Philip of France plundered the Church whenever he needed a buck.

the Vatican maintained the Empire Rome had left behind.

If you mean the actual roman empire, it was of course Greek Orthodox and maintained (spiritually at least) by the Patriarchate until being overrun by Islamic forces. If you mean the Holy Roman Empire, it was an implacable enemy of the Vatican and fought innumerable wars against the Popes.

As individual states became more powerful and less subservient to the Vatican, the idea of a "law higher than the state" remained; this was used to justify England's Magna Carta,

Partly, yeah.

the USA's Declaration of Independence,

This was justified in Deist or Humanist terms, not Christian and certainly not Catholic ones.

and the French Revolution.

You mean the well-known atheist humanist movement which wiped out a good chunk of France's Christian clergy?!?!

In the case of Vatican City, the idea of church as an independent state remains.

No. A state directly controlled by the church remains. There used to be several such states, now there's only one. I don't think anybody goes from this to considering the remaining state and the church to be the same; it's just that one is based in, and forms the government of, the other.

Anyway, you get the idea...

Re:Al a carte government services time has come

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to opt out of Social Security, farm subsidies, K-12 public schools, and public television.

Feel free to move to someplace that doesn't have any of these services then.

There's a rather large number of African countries that don't, as well as some remaining in Central Asia. I'm sure you'll find a country with no social safety net far more pleasurable and enjoyable to live in.

Note -- do not move to Western Europe, Australia, or increasingly large areas of Eastern Europe, Asia, or South America. All of them have social safety nets that vastly exceed those of the US. Often with lower taxes.

As a non-citizen you may find that the Middle East provides similar lack-of-services to you as well. Enjoy.

Re:Anti-religion

[hachete]

...ah, how little of the mechanics of love you know. *any* position will get you into trouble...

Note to the editors and flamers...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of contributing to the flame war...

I think it's a bit unfair to categorize non-religious people as "Freethinkers." People with religious beliefs aren't necessarily stupid, uninformed, enslaved, or otherwise non-free--Christianity included. Slashdot editors should be more careful when choosing their words.

It's funny how much reverse discrimination there is against Christianity with all the anti-Christians shooting it down with charges of bigotry, intolerance, and hypocrisy. Words like "free thinkers" seem to betray your critical stance as intolerant, bigoted, and hypocritical.

I think the critics of religion and the religious blow-hards truly hate about each other are all the things human they see in themselves despite their faith or lack thereof.

I think both sides should just shut up and practice what they preach. If your free thinking includes not believing in God, enjoy your freedom but respect others' rights to choose to believe in it as they are free to think something different than you. If you choose to believe in a god, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Linus Torvalds, or whatever, you should not gloat or judge others who don't think like you.

In other words, be free to think but shut the f**k up about which side you think is right. It's immature and assinine to argue about it and counter-intuitive to the notion of "Free thinking." Use reason and respect, people.

The world would be such a better place without all the name calling and judging going on between people who think differently than one another.

Slashdot probably would be a better place, too. (But it just wouldn't be the same).

PS> Yeah, maybe a "State Church" isn't such a hot idea. I think we should be glad that the US doesn't (yet) have one. Thank God for term limits! :-D

Re:Anti-religion

[bigpat]

People aren't being encouraged to seperate the two, they are being encouraged to abandon religion all together. What are the numbers of new enrollment in other religions besides the state run religion, in Finland? I am just saying that if your desire is to seperate church and state, then create a movement to seperate the two. Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.

What is the difference? If your religion is state sponsored and you believe in seperation of church and state, then what other principled choice do you have? Or do you suggest illegally dodging the tax and still going to church on Sunday?

But I doubt that is what actually is going on. I suspect that most of the people resigning were never really members in the first place. In advertising it is called "opt out". The only choice you are given is to resign if you are by default a member of the church.

Real purpose of "separation of church and state"

[boomgopher]

I think this whole concept of a "state church" is what the founding fathers were against, and the motivation for separation of church and state, not petty crap like what is going on in San Diego.

I mean seriously, I think all the folks who rant against the US being a theocracy and hot-bed of fundementalism, etc, etc. need to travel around a little bit more, I think they'd be in for some surprises... even in Europe!

Re:church income tax?

[juhaz]

Later in life when they are more stable and have disposable income they will not have any ties to the church, so why would they rejoin?

You have to be a member if you want a church wedding, and for some reason many, even otherwise quite modern, young women do, and in the process manage to push their would-be-hubbies to rejoin.

Re:Anti-religion

[Frodo Crockett]

People aren't being encouraged to seperate the two, they are being encouraged to abandon religion all together.

And that's a good thing. Most religions are a dangerous form of self-delusion, and the True Believers have a tendency to be downright hostile towards their fellow humans. There's also a long history of violence motivated by religion.

Besides that, if the state church of Finland believes that it's okay to take money from people without their knowledge and express consent, they're cocksuckers no matter what.

Re:I don't agree

[ForumTroll]

I'd still be a little concerned that they need an imaginary friend to tell them not to kill...

Re:Al a carte government services time has come

[metamatic]

As an American I would like to opt out of Social Security, farm subsidies, K-12 public schools, and public television.

Apart from Social Security, that's all chump change.

Take public television. The total budget there is $380m for 2006, and there are 122,721,000. If we pretend that PBS is funded only by individual taxes and not corporate tax, that still makes your share of the funding a piddling $3.10. Hardly worth your time to whine about it, I'd think.

Me, I'd rather opt out of the stupid Iraq and Afghanistan wars and get back $3500.

Re:church income tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

The amusing part here being that the same people who are denouncing these easy to bow-out sites are the same ones who vocally denounce state-mandated Islam. It's seems that it's only worth defending if it's keeping people Christian.

Re:Al a carte government services time has come

[plague3106]

You're not paying for someone else's kids' education. You're paying us all back for YOUR education, which you received for free some years ago.

Kind of a silly argument, don't you think? I certainly didn't have a choice where I went to school, nor did I actually force you to pay for my education. The state made you pay for it, not me. I'm just saying the state shouldn't force anyone to pay for someone else's kids.

FWIW, I spent 7 years in a private school for which my parents paid. I then spent 5 years in college for which my family and I paid. The remaining years (grade 8 - 12) my parents paid property tax, so really they were paying for my education there as well, and even when I wasn't in public school they were paying to support someone elses kid in public school.

I guess your argument doesn't really hold up, does it?

Re:church income tax?

[cp.tar]

Well, give Muslims time.

Right now they're in their, what, 14th century?

Compare Islam in Islam's 14th century and Christianity in its 14th century.

Not such a big difference now, is it?

Re:Real purpose of "separation of church and state

[T3hFish]

The cross in San Diego was quite offensive. It made me feel unwelcome because I am not Christian. It was on government property and could be seen by a lot of the city. Although it was an obvious violation of the separation of church and state, a judge had to order it removed many times before it was taken down. Religion is quite a bad thing IMO. Believing in a god is harmless for the most part. However, many wars have been started over religion (eg. the crusades). The real problem with religion is corrupt/stupid religious leaders who do not respect other people's beliefs or lack thereof. Also, why believe in god? I might as well believe in the invisible pink elephant in the room. (Not that it is possible to be invisible and pink, but most religious beliefs contain irrational/impossible components.) Look here: http://www.google.com/search?q=dawkins+religion for more problems with religion. I don't think there is a problem with people believing in whatever thing they want. They just shouldn't try to make other people believe in it if they don't want to and they shouldn't kill other people for what they believe.

killing?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe I'm crazy here, but how many religions 'officialy' promote violence?
I, personally, am religious.
I dont do violent things to people. no one I know does violent things to people. huh.

as for brainwashing....
I am currently attending BYU. that's a Church-owned school. there's more religious references in a day than the rest of this post.
and you know what?
It has some of the best schools for:
buisness
Computer science
robotics
foreign language.
yes, these are nationwide ratings.
how many of you people know a foreign language? esp. you americans.
at this religious school, not only are religious classes required, foreign language requirments are much higher than other schools.
you know, foreign language, that thing that allows you to talk to people not american?

so, because some random zealots use religion as an excuse to promote violence, does that mean religion is bad, or the zealots?
I don't mind preaching either way. it's what happens.
so, if your state church loses membership, don't try to blame the site. try to increase your own members' faith.
duh.

Re:Al a carte government services time has come

[wingsofchai]

The exodus from the Church of Finland is just another example of the desire of citizens to opt out of certain government services that do not serve them. As an American I would like to opt out of Social Security, farm subsidies, K-12 public schools, and public television.

Bzzzzt! Wrong! Public education serves everyone, most especially the ones who are upper class and/or business owners. At low cost to themselves they get an educated workforce that is mroe productive, or an educated workforce for the companies they are invested in. It serves those in the middle class by providing them a route to the upper class and again, better workforce. It serves those in the lower class because it gives them a way out of the lower economic class.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that public education helps to remove class barriers, while making those at the top more money. Everyone benefits.

Re:Church?

[east coast]

So, how is it that when Bin Laden says something like that, he's a terrorist, but when Joe Sixpack says it, he's just standing up for the second amendment?

Because people who have a problem with an inanimate object don't seem to understand that there are various ways to use it. It's the end goal of it's use that is the problem, not the object itself.

Don't forget that bullets have enslaved people just as they have freed people.

Perhaps if Bin Laden was threating you with death unless you served his purpose you'd understand the difference.

Re:Al a carte government services time has come

[SatanicPuppy]

Meh.

If you went to a private school, then your parents had enough money to pony up so that people who couldn't afford private school could have you know, textbooks and stuff.

If you were home schooled, or went to religious school, think of it as a tax assessed against your right to brainwash your own kid (apologies to secular homeschoolers).

I know it's popular to think, "I don't use it so I don't care" here, but some of us, my own private schooled ass included, think that there is a little more to the world than screwing poor kids out of an education, and screwing poor old people out of a little pocket change a month. A lot of countries do a hell of a lot more, but if there is one constant about human nature it's that no matter how small the burden, you can find a ton of people to whine about how heavy it is.

Re:Real purpose of "separation of church and state

[Anonymous Coward]

"It wasn't really clear what its message was."

...which is exactly why I have no problem with it, and truly don't understand people's problem with it.

Let's review the situation. Some people really don't like the city putting a monstrous cross high on a hill top but then some Christians decide that only they get to decide what people should like and dislike and force the cross on everyone else even though these Christians don't even have a clear reason for putting there in the first place.

So who's being petty here?

Maybe the government should force all Christians to take a crap on a cross. I mean, it's not like it actually matters whether they do or not, so if they object they are just being petty.

It's called respect for individual freedom: I don't force my paranoia on you and you don't force your paranoia on me - even it's totally trivial and meaningless. Of course, Christians totally don't get the whole common decency and respect for personal space thing - they're convinced that they know the absolute truth and need to force it on everyone else. And then if someone objects, rather than doing the decent thing and respecting the other person's objections they climb up on their high horse and trivialize that person's objections and criticize that person's lifestyle.

"What you want isn't important because as a Christian I have decided that I am right and you are wrong and I get to decide what matters to you and what doesn't! You objections to having to put up with my paranoia don't matter because what you want is sinful because you aren't Christian!"

Re:Atheists push to establish State religion

[Fordiman]

Atheism, the way many atheists use it (but fail to see it) is a religion. It's believing that if you've never seen it, and are incapable of ever seeing it, it's not there. Not a bad way to go, mind you, but a bit closed-minded for my tastes.

Meanwhile, agnostcism carries the connotation of trying to figure out the ineffable mysteries of the unknown. "Is there a god? Well, I don't know. I think I'll spend the rest of my cycles trying to figure that one out." Eh, seems like too much work.

I coined a new one a few years ago: apathism. "Is there a God?" "Who cares. I'll give a damn when he comes down here and gives me noogies." "How did the universe begin?" "Why does it matter?"

When confronted with this idea, people often ask me things like "Well, if everybody thought like that, what would be the incentive to be a good person?" "Who cares? No, seriously. Say I do something bad to you. You retaliate and do something bad to me, right? You don't need some god putting it into your head that being bad is bad. You figure it out eventually."

Wow, I'm getting very close to proselytizing here. Anyways, my point is this: if you're an atheist, and staunchly believe in the nonexistence of deities, faeries, sprites, leprechauns, etc, that's fine. Just don't go thinking you're religionless. If you truly don't care about the existence of Thor/God/Zora/the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you're not an atheist. You may not be an apathist either, but use the name if it suits you. I don't actually care.

Re:Church?

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! You're so out of touch with reality. He's a muslim fundamentalist, true. But that's not what made him create Al Qaeda. In his speaches he says often that the reasons he's fighting for are: 1) The abolition of the state of Israel which is a non-natural state and the creation of it took lands from several arabic people. 2) Payback against the bombings of Lebanon and the killings of several arabic leaders allegedly by the CIA and Mossad. 3) Occupation by corruption of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by the US 4) Iraq.

It's a consequence of a bad US foreign policy, that's life. We have to live with it. But don't tell me it's pure fundamentalism, don't make US the good guy and Al Qaeda the bad guy. Both have valid points and both are defending what believe is right. But - i'm sorry to say - both didn't do (and aren't doing) the right thing so none has the moral high ground.

I will post anonymously because I don't believe in witches but that they do exist, they do.

Re:Al a carte government services time has come

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not paying for someone else's kids' education. You're paying us all back for YOUR education, which you received for free some years ago.

I disagree with this justification. A reasonable justification is paying for the benefits of living in a society that values education and provides such opportinuties for all (at least to some minimal level). Of course, the quality of that education varies wildly, and we can certainly disagree on effectiveness of implementation.

- T

Re:10%-Baptists-Christian Coolition-Bush-War

[glesga_kiss]

Please point out, at your earliest convenience, where either Stormin or myself, or any of the pro-life people in this thread, have attempted to justify our logic by means of religion?

You probably didn't, but take a look at the subject line. The topic is about religion. You may not have started it, but that's the way it went.

Inconvenience for nine months on the part of a mother who engaged in consensual sex is not extremely good cause.

There's more to it than "inconvenience" and there is certainally more to it than nine months. Unwanted children will not be cared for. If the mother is irresponsible to get pregnant by accident in the first place, what kind of child would she bring up? I've always argued that many of the problems in our society are directly linked to bad parenting. Many parents would rather watch TV than to rear their children into responsible adults.

This isn't a debate I enter often, so this may be wrong but I remember reading once about how crime statistics were linked to abortion. In places where it was outlawed, unwanted children were dropped out one after the other. Crime rates shot up as did unemployement and all the other issues associated with lazy-as-fuck parenting.

Therefore, abortion is wrong, and should be illegal, except in cases of rape or potential death of the mother.

That's bad logic. If it's wrong, it's wrong. The old adage here "two wrongs do not make a right". Potential death is of course different (as the fetus would die anyway), but I don't really understand the "rape only" clause. It's either murder or it's not.

Show we where the fuck that involves prescribing my religious beliefs on someone. Really, I'm fascinated. Please do.

Perhaps you didn't, but you are prescribing your own moral beliefs on everyone else which is just as bad. In fact, some religious people would say it is worse as they are on a "mission from god" or something. ;-)

My stance on this issue is quite simple. It's a decission for the doctor and parents involved only. You can make your opposition known, but don't try to physically or legally stop them. Some people believe that cars are destroying the planet and are morally wrong for that reason. Should their beliefs trump yours? Should you give up your car?

Re:Al a carte government services time has come

[Alsee]

What do you feel the war in Afghanistan achieved?

A heck of a lot less than it would have had we not attacked Iraq.

-