Slashdot Mirror
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)."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along..
I resigned from the church ages ago, where's the site to help people resign from the state?
At least not in common English. Please educate yourselves.
Could someone from over there please explain how this Church Income Tax works? sounds scary. Of course, over here in the U.S. the old traditional Baptist churchs do their best to get everyone to tithe (10% of income), but it's not a line item on our form 1040
for "resigning" from AOL
The most common reasons cited for resigning from the church have been saving church income tax (1.3% on average)
In medieval England, wasn't the church tithe 10%? They're lucky its only about one percent!
Money is more important than jesus
I wonder what membership fee we pay a year just to be called an American?
...I'm outta here!
Have fun flaming...
We got to help our less intelligent brethren with imaginary friends, to stop hallucinating.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
This article smacks of anti-religious propaganda. FTA, it is stated that the main reason people are leaving is to avoid taxes. This isn't some great coup for the anti-religious crowd. I can support the seperation of church and state. But that isn't what is going on here. 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.
This just goes to show that if churchs want to keep people envolved they need to change to meet what people want / can tolerate. The tax thing is just silly, it is like a resturant adding tip to your bill for you. Once churches relize that they are a service then they will start to change for the better.
Since bribery is still really not illegal in the US,
Funny church money still plays a role in government (in addition to the role of corporate funny money).
The result: We need to invade countries to take oil for our suv trips to walmart, and so people can go to church and learn about the magical being that really wants us to believe in the unbelievable.
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?
It's not just Baptist churchs in the U.S. which try to get folks to tithe.
When I went through this process, it was not yet possible to resign through Internet. I had to visit the church office and the priest wanted to have a serious discussion with me. I was a bit rude and cut it short...
Internet used to get people out of sending money to the church? Splits voluntary religious power from mandatory state power?
I see a new threat to Freedom lurking on the horizon, ready to enter the Republican Party platform as "them" in the "us vs them" Terror War just in time for 2006 Campaign Season.
Didn't I hear about some "Cathedral vs Bazaar" terrorist manifesto praising the Finnish cyberterrorists attacking America's beloved Microsoft?
We've got to rip these Internets out by the roots!
--
make install -not war
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.
an ill wind that blows no good
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.
The Flying Spagetti Monster created all life as we know it. Please wake up from your delusions about "Christianity", "Islam", "Hindu", and all other religions. When you die you will NOT go to heaven with our BEER VOLCANO, and out STRIPPER FACTORY. Our religion has every Friday a religous holiday. We also advocate loose moral standards. Convert before it is too late!! Eternal abstenence from pasta awaits non-believers. Pastafarianism is the one true religion.
about time _some_ humans resign from their stupidity
What can't it do?
"Deconstruction" - is a PHB word and as such has no place with anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
Construction is a erudite word meaning "building". You cannot 'de-build'. If you mean dismantle or demolish, say so.
Apart from use in philosophy etc, this word is not valid.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
If we're limiting ourselves to common English, and all...
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Yeah—Derrida, Spivak, et al. were nothing if not archetypical PHBs. Again, please educate yourself.
Is this News for nerds? I submitted a story the other day about Bill Gates' left toe being slightly bigger than his right and it got rejected. And *this* thing comes through? Come on!
Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
This is what separation of church and state means. It does not mean that private citizens or politicans are prohibited from openly expressing religious views in public or on government facilities. It means that the United States cannot establish an official state religion or for all intents and purposes do so by providing funding to one. There is nothing even stopping a government from funding all "real religions" (ie something that is not obviously a bullshit scam like Scientology).
You have to understand a couple of things about the Finnish Lutheran Church and its role in the Finnish society first.
Historically everyone in Finland belonged to the Lutheran Church. Children born were automatically "enrolled" if at least one of the parents (or maybe just the mother) belonged to the church, and since 99% (or so) did, practically all children born in Finland became Lutherans as well.
It didn't matter how religious you were, if you were born in Finland, you were a Lutheran, even if you worshipped pagan Gods in your free time. You had to specifically resign from the church to stop being a Lutheran.
The Finnish people are not particularly religious, especially the younger generations. People go to church only when it's forced upon them (e.g. beginning and end of school year) or for "special occassions" (e.g. christening babies, confirmation, weddings and funerals). Extremely few people attend Sunday service.
Christening and confirmation are usually done mostly by habit rather than by some religious need. Confirmation, in particular, has more to do with teenagers having a blast (and sneaking into each others' rooms during the summer camps most teenagers attend to get the confirmation done) than anything religious. It's more of a rite of passage than reaffirming your belief in God.
Finally the Lutheran Churches' privilege to tax people in Finland has been very unpopular for at least two decades. People don't quite see why they have to pay part of their income to an institution that they have no connection with.
This has nothing to do with any anti-religious movement. The Freethinkers are not bashing Christianity, they are just making it easier for people, who are not religious, to resign from the church.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
you assholes, not paying up, HOW IS GOD SUPPOSED TO FEED THE BABY JESUS, NOW? oh yeah...that omnipotence thing...maybe jesus needs a new pair of those weird-kid boots with buckles and spikes 'n shit all over 'em. he kinda strikes me as a rebel...
Everyone's knee-jerk reaction is to say 'good for you' but I wonder how much of a part their church instidution plays in providing support and services we now associate with government. Are these taxes simply lining the coffers or going to things such as a version of welfare and social services?
"Deconstruction" is almost universally understood to refer to a specific sort of literary analysis. No reasonably well-educated English speaker should mistake it as a synonym for "destruction" or "dismantlement."
I suspect a more appropriate word in the title would have used a form of the verb "to erode," thus: "Internet Eroding State Church in Finland."
Please educate yourselves.
...at least from a German point of view, which is quite naturally the only one I can have with regard to this topic. ;-)
That term suggests that the church is somehow an official organ of the state. In Germany, that is not true. The churches (!) that are officially acknowledged as churches (!) by the state have the right to have their members pay taxes. This has been laid down in "concordats", i.e., treaties between state and churches, several of which exist since 1924.
The churches themselves are still independent, and so is the state.
It's not too much money, by the way. Not a reason for me to resign from my church anyway. Which, in turn, is just a personal opinion, of course. :-)
I wonder ... is paying the church tax helps you advance into heaven?!
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...
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
For the Finns here: this is the official note for resigning from church or other religious group:
http://lomake.fi/forms/pdf/MAIST/Vrk+1.70a
That is just subversive
Subversive? We're talking about combatting Lutheranism, here. There's nothing more subversive than Lutherans. They have managed to completely take over most of the upper midwest of the US, causing Minnesota to have thousands of lakes in which to hide their underwater fortresses (called "Perches"), and making almost everyone chant their subversive mantras, "Oh yah, you betcha" and "Well, OK then!"
Their prophet, Garrison Keillor, uses his vast network of National Public Radio stations to broadcast his "Pray At Home Companion" show directly into the minds of members, who then send in money and get back tote bags with subliminal messages embroidered onto them by Hmong immigrants working in Wisconsin sweat shops. Keillor's goal? Transition to a sinister god-like form known as a "Lex Lutheran," which allows him to have a hot, but dumb, female sidekick.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
At the risk of contributing to the flame war...
:-D
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!
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!
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
This topic is relevant on Slashdot why...?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Call the Church Police!
And now, I'd like to conclude this arrest with a hymn.
A tithe is either a [[tax]] when enforced by the state, or a [[membership fee]] when enforced by a church. Tithing according to the Old Testament of the Bible should be 10%, but the New Testament, which lays down the law to be followed by present day Christians, merely suggests we joyfully give that we may receive. 2 Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Given that, what does "Separation of church and state" really mean, anyway?
It means that there should be no official religion for a country - since a religion is chosen by the people (or by their parents), and can't be enforced. Clergy should not occupy state offices (i.e. governor, senator, etc). Religion should be excempt from taxes.
I live in Mexico, and we have this distinction very clear. There's also been an "anticatholicism" idea in the government, because for more than 70 years (until 2000), it was the freemasons who were presidents and ruled the country. So more than a separation between Church and State, we have a Church persecuted by the State. The most agressive attack against the Catholic Church was when Plutarco Elias Calles became president and declared religion illegal in 1926, and temples were destroyed or taken by the state to become public libraries. This led to the famous "cristero war". Not surprisingly, all references of the cristero war taught in official history books portrayed the movement as some kind of anarchy - and the people who fought this war in favor of the Church, were portrayed as "savage indians" controlled by the catholic hierarchy. The official books did not mention how many innocent people were slaughtered, and how many priests and religious people were persecuted.
Since then, religion is forbidden to do public acts of worship outside churches (except when permitted explicitly by the State), and priests are forbidden from wearing religious outfits in the street. Even Pope John Paul II could not use his tiara when he visited Mexico for the first time in 1979.
All this changed when president Carlos Salinas (independently from the corruption of his regime followed by an economic crisis) modified the freedom of religion laws.
As you can see, religion is a touchy subject, and so is politics. But it becomes much worse when these two are mixed together. For example, the traditionally opposing party in Mexico (PAN), which was founded by compromised catholics, is labelled as "the right-wing" by the freemasonry-founded party (PRI), and they use that name, "the right-wing" to portray PAN as some kind of religious fundamentalists who are intolerant of anything. Insert rumours of secret catholic societies, murders of famous members of the clergy, and it all becomes more and more blurry.
Political reasons. A functioning state church attracts religiously inspired people into one flock and under one "official" Lutheran doctrine that's very, very stable - and dare I say pseudo-secular in its tolerance towards minorities and other religions - in the long run.
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.
The owls are not what they seem
It may not sound like big news if 41000 people use a web service in some small country somewhere. But it is actually a huge effect. In a country of 5 million, nearly 1% of all people - including kids and pensioners - have resigned from a powerful institution with few clicks in the last couple of years. In US that would correspond to almost 3 million people!
And the Church is terrified. Thay are losing income at an increasing pace. They have already announced a need to shrink the number of priests and church workers in the future.
The Lutheran Church of Finland is still trying to defend it's bastion as a major institution on par with government, army and universities. The lutheran church in Sweden has already been kicked out from government protection and the process is beginning in Norway.
The Chuch is still powerful - almost evil - consider this:
- Most don't even notice that 1.3% of their income is sucked out
- At the age of 14, kids have to go to religious camps where they are forced to attest their faith. When they graduate, they are rewarded with presents and told that "now they are adults". You might have thought state-churches are tame, but this a Brainwashing, and nothing else. Bloody sickening.
- Even today there is just one (or two?) graveyards for non-religious people - and the church loves it's monopoly - if you are as an atheist buried to church graveyard, you'll have to pay hefty extra.
- Religion is thought in school, and the 85% who are members, MUST attend and pass. Otherwise no diplomas are coming your way. Could we possibly use this time better? Maths, languages, anyone?
- Due to all this brainwashing, is it no wonder that many people in Finland are completely unable to critizise or question the church or religion. Even though nobody talks about it, it is somehow accepted as a part of "culture".
In this perspective the phenomenon that is reported here is perhaps THE best internet movement that has ever taken place in Finland. Lot's of money and people are involved, and I hope, some cleansing of thinking as well.
And as for subversion, I kinda think that is a reasonable goal.. They want the church out of the government, therfore undermining the government. Or simply to destroy (with civil/social methods) the state religion.
While I might not applaud their actions, I still feel that they deserve the right to forward their beliefs.
Storm
Subversive? No. Subversive is arguing that OUR immortable leader living invisibly and undetectably in the sky is more all-powerful than YOUR immortal leader living invisibly and undetectably in the sky to justify violence or to tolerate sickness and suffering. That's not just subversive, it's sick and wrong by any standards I understand.
So long as people use their religious affiliation to justify acts of inhumanity, encouraging people to separate from religion seems to me to be the only moral thing to do.
I'm decidedly not a fan of state churches, but saving less than 2% on your taxes is a *terrible* reason to withdraw. I mean, come on, 1.3%? Buncha misers. How can a church even survive on that in the first place? If we only gave that percentage of our income around here, our churches wouldn't be able to cover the utility bills and such, much less pay the pastor any kind of salary.
If you object to having the state decide your religion for you, then withdraw for that reason. That's a good reason. Don't withdraw just because you're too stingy to cough up the measley 1.3% tithe. Sheesh.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I can understand why this is coming out of Tampere. I was on a two week tour of Finland back in '88, which included concerts in a number of churches and cathedrals. Most of them were really nice, except for the one in Tampere (Tampereen Tuomiokirkko). The art in the place was downright scary. Behind the altar is an image of the Resurrection which looks more like Night of the Living Dead. (An exaggeration, perhaps, but they certainly didn't seem happy about being alive.) To the side was a painting of some sort of bone demon with a scythe. And to top it off, the dome overhead had an image of a huge coiled snake, jaws open, with an apple in its mouth, poised to attack the viewer from above. Maybe a dozen locals attended the concert there, while the other concerts were well attended, and I can't blame them a bit.
I am making no statements on what I believe should be done, please don't try to ascribe false ones to me to pick an argument where there isn't one.
My point is a very simple one: To espouse that people should give up religion is no more subversive than it is to espouse that people should join a religion. I am also pointing out that while some may consider their view that religion is a major problem extreme, misinformed, incorrect, etc, I am pointing out that it's certianly not any more so than views required by most major religions.
I am not making a statement as to what I think should be done or my views on religion, not because I won't talk about it but because I am not interested in getting in a fight tanget to my main point. I am simply pointing out that that it's not "subversive" to preach against religion.
So, I wonder if I can get this post modded up by being the first person to use antidisestablishmentarianism in a slashdot thread properly and in context?
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
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.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
Baby killing:
Yes, The killing of babies and children in Iraq, Afganistan,and Palestine in the oil/religion wars is terrible.
Socialism:
You do realize that every society today has elements of socialism.
If you really disaggree with socialism, then you are likely a pure libertarian, and you would like only private roads, private police, private education, private parks,.... 'private' probably meaning ran by a corporation/religious organization that you do not vote for.
Coffee:
Yes, coffee is bad.
Starbucks:
Yes, bad.
Crack:
Yes, crack is bad.
Prius:
Hybrid does not fix the problem of endless expansion of roads.
Exactly what are you advocating?
It ought not be about "what the people want/can tolerate." It ought to be about the Truth.
While I agree that some taxes should be "a la carte", there are many government provided services that constitute public goods - things we constantly benefit directly or indirectly from whether we do so knowingly/willingly.
I certainly agree that farm subsidies should be done away with, and Social Security is in need of a big overhaul, no doubt. I personally like PBS, but I understand the difficulty with it as a public good.
K-12 public schools, however, provide a service that as consumers we all benefit from. Think of it like an effective road system - even those who do not own cars or never actually use the roads themselves (an unlikely problem that would affect perhaps only a few Americans), all benefit from the rapid, efficient movement of goods and services that these roads provide (some less rapid than others, of course). Roads reduce transaction costs by allowing for rapid transit and remove the free-loader problem by charging everyone to use them. The alternative would be extensive use of toll roads, an expensive undertaking.
K-12 public education does much the same. It reduces transaction costs by teaching all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of the citizens basic skills such as literacy, basic math, and civics/a basic understanding of history and government (perhaps where education is lacking the most), and basic job skills - typing, perhaps some computer programming, the use of basic software, etc.
The alternative? Well, you could home school, which effectively removes any woman with children from the job market, an unlikely proposition given the number of single mothers about. You could pay for private school, but most lower class - not to mention most middle class - citizens couldn't hope to support that (keep in mind - the wealthy pay a majority of the taxes in this country, what they pay in taxes for education could not hope to cover the cost of a private school tuition). Alternatively, you could just leave the kids at home all day, which leaves millions of young men and women uneducated, unemployable, and unsocialized, and therefore likely leading them into lives of crime/dependence. As the son of an educator who has worked most of her life in lower class school districts, I can assure you that many of the mothers of these children would not go out of their way to assure they had any sort of education - their efforts now are more often based on legal requirements than anything love for their children or hope for their success.
Imagine the difficulty many businesses would have with employees coming to them who were entirely illiterate and incapable of basic addition and subtraction. Snide comments aside about how this is already often the case, think about it - I cannot think of any job that does not require at least these basic skills. Everyone from your burger flipper at McDonald's to your friendly Wal-Mart associate needs them, not to mention much of the geometry done by construction workers and the like (and I have a lot of respect for construction workers). Should businesses be expected to train incoming employees to read, add, subtract, divide, and multiply? I can imagine that would greatly impact their bottom line, and the amount we all pay. Should we create a permanent underclass that is unhirable because of these faults? That would have high societal costs as well, even if welfare were completely done away with.
Public education keeps "kids off the streets", trains people with at least the basic skills that allow them to function in an economy, and reduces transaction costs for all of us. Don't be too quick to throw it away and refuse it funding - you benefit from it, whether you realize it or not.
Couldn't agree more. But the current public school system, particularly its funding structure, is amoral. I am embarrassed to be a party to it. The underclasses are condemned to languish in underfunded, crime ridden, failed schools. The affluent attend feel-good country clubs. Even potentially good students are discouraged and stunted by the political pablum slung at them by the liberal elite. Privatize schools. Introduce market forces for teachers, defang the unions, add vouchers for student mobility and positive changes will occur.
an ill wind that blows no good
Who made you the vocabulary police? Do you want to stomp your foot and pout until everyone uses words the way you want them to, regardless of what the dictionary says?
Just in case, here is the original video of this. Nice spoof!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
it was 1/10th of income(or potates
Somebody dispatch Dan Quayle to assist this poor soul with their spelling.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Massachusetts was the last US State in to disestablish its state church in 1833 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church). The state church in MA was Congregationalism (which I think is now part of the very liberal "United Church of Christ"). When MA abolished state religion, they did it as a matter of public policy, not because the US constitution forced them. The idea that the several states are forbidden by the Federal constitutions to have a state religion is fairly modern and was only expressed by the Supreme Court in the 1940s. Up until then, established religion by the individual states and local communities was considered compatible with the federal constitution because the Bill of Rights was usually interpreted to only apply at the Federal level. However, as a practical matter, AFAIK every state has had a prohibition on offically established religion as a part of their state constitutions for a very long time.
Was it his left toe vs. his right toe on his right foot? Was it his two "big toes"? You have to be more specific in order for anyone to be able to properly misinterpret the article!
Unlike the Jewish (Christian/Muslim) god, the Greek gods didn't really 'smite' the humans or 'taught them a lesson', at least not as often; they more or less fooled around with them. Zeus for example really looved the women, he used all his magic tricks hunting after hot chicks. - To be fair though, if you read Homer et al you will find there were morals, virtues and values, but it was more of a karma/fate thing, not a 'faith' thing.
Polytheists were also naturally more tolerant towards other beliefs as well, compared to quite an amount of monotheists who even resort to waging wars in the name of religion.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
And this is news for Slashdot? Replacing Finland's Christianity with State Atheism? Replacing one religion with another?
Disgusting.
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.
In the US a church is a tax-exempt entity, a charitable organization. If they don't pay taxes for the revenue they bring in, and their members can write off the contributions to the church, doesn't that in effect mean the rest of us are paying money that people paying the church don't?
So if I take a vacation with my family I don't get to write it off. But if I donate the same amount of money to my church, who then sponsors an trip to Europe that we participate in, that money is deducted from my gross income. And I directly benefit from money I "donate" to my church.
If you move a few signs around the equation, isn't that the same as taxing people who don't go to church? Double-time? Because if I donate to Oxfam they don't take me on a field trip to another country. They use the money to help someone else.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
It's easy to forget that most countries don't have the "Establishment of Religion" clause. Even Russia has a list of "official" religions. My parents both went to state-subsidized Catholic schools in Canada — despite being Jewish!
I fondly remember an episode of Yes, Prime Minister, where they're arguing over the appointment of a Bishop for the Church of England, which is sort of an arm of the state. One candidate is an atheist. Does this disqualify him? Nobody's sure.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCo n
total from list above 809,215,732.
This article is interesting and all but how comes it is on Slashdot?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Except we can't resign from it -- they just take some of our taxes and give it to the churches of their (current administration) choice: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/ Troll-ish? Perhaps. But you like it.
I didn't like the huge cross on the hill in San Diego either. It wasn't really clear what its message was. For all I knew, it was threatening to torture me for all eternity after I died. Or maybe it just wanted to take away my freedom and force me to live a "Christian" lifestyle (ie. bizarre rules about my sex life and stuff).
On the subject of message, though, I didn't understand why Christians would want a symbol of their religion associated with a war memorial. Were they trying to send the message that Christianity approves of war or of people being killed in war? Was it like when frat boys try to pee their name in the snow except with a war memorial and a replica of a Roman torture device rather than snow and pee.
In some ways, though, it seemed vaguely appropriate. After all, putting a replica of a device used to torture people to death to further a foreign military conquest at a site meant to commemorate a brutal foreign military conquest does seem somehow appropriate.
Consider this: how many people were killed as a result of the Roman Catholic church in the last 2000 years? I say "thank god" that in the last 100 years or so religion has become less powerful and therefore less dangerous. But we aren't completely free from the oppression of religion yet. What's the biggest source of violence in the news today? All the troubles in the Middle East come from religious fanaticism. If Jerusalem weren't a holy city in three religions, other problems in that region wouldn't be so acute. The oil around there is valuable from a money point of view, but no suicide bomber will kill himself for money.
Does this not suggest that in a contemporary setting, "political ideology" is far more dangerous than "religion"?
Certainly, fanaticism is always dangerous, but religion makes for more dangerous fanatics. It's only because religion is becoming less relevant that politics is gaining ground in killing people. Any type of belief that goes beyond reasoning is dangerous, and religious hate can become associated with political motives, look at Northern Ireland for an example.
I fully support the freely available clause. I am not looking to save a buck. I want the system to serve as many as possible. Indeed I think basic healthcare and dentistry should be included as well. To do otherwise is to waste human capital, the most unthinkable crime.
I am embarrassed about the amoral->immoral typo.
an ill wind that blows no good
"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. A cross is now a very generic geometric religous icon, moreso than say, a giant buddha.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
You're failing to mention that every company operating in Finland also has to pay to the church. Part of the "communal tax" that's mandatory to all companies is paid to the Lutheran Church, no matter who works in the company. Effectively this causes everyone spending money in the country contributing to the Church. Last year they got 86 million euros this way, or about 17 euros per capita. I'd rather have that in my pocket and have a couple more pints. ;)
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
Zeus is so going to kick your ass.
His name is Jupiter.
Stick Men
I agree that the cross thing is petty.
I don't agree that this is all there was to the separation of church and state. The separation protects the church as much as it does the state... remember that many of these people came from a country whose king destroyed an entire religion just to get a divorce. Nowadays, I suspect that a lot of Christians who backed the "religious" right now are beginning to discover that old adage about lying down with the dogs.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It's like having the option of opting out of a mafia protection racket when by default the whole neighborhood is in, doesn't make the crime any less.
Except, you know, the mafia doesn't let you out just like the state doesn't let you out of most other taxes. The church tax lets you peacefully out if all you do is ask.
Violence is pointless in this endeavor unless you're hoping to use it to force your decision on others. There is no justification for it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The 14th Amendment is what extends the limitations of the federal government to the state and local governments and was passed in the wake of the Civil War to prevent Confederate states from discriminating against the newly freed slaves.
In 1833, it was still generally permissable for state governments to establish state religions, restrict free speech, restrict free press, forbid the bearing of arms, quarter solidiers in homes, etc., etc., though most state constitutions banned some or all of these acts. This just wasn't brought into question again until much later.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The GP made a slight mistake, he/she should have used better instead of different.
Getting people to leave [a] religion is better than getting them to join one, for the simple reason that getting someone to stop believing in omni-potent, omni-present invisible men with long beards in the sky (and other metaphysical claptrap, at least as far as the three Judeo-derived sectsare concerned) is a self-evident Good Thing.
So remember:
Helping someone become less psychotic: Good.
Helping them become more so: Bad
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
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!"
As originally inspired, a tithing in church meant a tenth child of a family was "deadicated" to church service. The people that changed this to mean 10% of monetary value in the form of banknotes and metal specie are hippocritts or employed by another's lie that they unmercifully defend. To this day, only a few congregations uphold this manner of church service. A church built on dependence of money is not a politic but a corporation. Ask yourselves if your church is unlimited, built of hands of able-bodied people that provide services without any denomination of artifice. Laughably, the same people that would force you to "know" that a tithe is money are usually the same people that accuse able-minded students and equally disposed historians applying rules of evidence to disprove text-book flaws in history; usually, accusing well-studied people of revising history when in-fact it is another's greed to revise history. (on an unrelated note: the Holocaust is a scam performed by false Jews: I said it).
On a parallel train of thought, a "dollar" was a measurement and not itself limited to gold and silver as said in the Constitution of the United States of America or the Bill of Rights attached onto it. There is the lawful money in the form of a milled spanish dollar, gold or silver, as measured; then there are the pseudo dollar evinced by paper money and fiat money. Bank notes are only as good as the controlling words that convey title to their bearer/posessor. A UNITED STATES Federal Reserve Note is neither Federal and neither a Reserve and neither a Note; it is a cause of a non-domestic non-federal corporation known as "FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM", has not set-aside any value for special use known as "Reserved", and neither is a note conveying title to property. Use them as a receipt of your labor/debt to someone, albeit a deceptive receipt.
Whatever you improve with your labor, you can draft your own bank note to represent your security interest in that property, and can tender that banknote of your interest to someone in an equal exchange for another value or stock or liquid securety or surety: lawful money. Don't let a non-politic force it on the people.
without prejudice
In spite of the Dan Quayle reference in my comment, you still managed to fail it... In addition to being an archaic spelling for potato, it was also a famous spelling error by a former VPOTUS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potatoe
[UID-HeinzIntel]
As a Finn, I'd like to share my perspective. I'm 21, so my perspective is modern and not from the possibly more repressive times.
Most are aware of this, but the amount is seen as negligible compared to the "effort" of resigning. Further more, a common viewpoint is that this money goes towards paying your place in the graveyard someday, and supporting church buildings, where many like to get married.
The brainwashing isn't quite working, then. All kids view this as the compulsory part of the one summer, where they endure a week of playing ping pong and singing songs by the campfire to get the presents. All in all, it's much like I imagine the American summer camps for children are, except it's a one week, one time deal. There are lessons about religion, and it's all pretty much memorising prayers and learning how the indexing works in the bible. As religious brainwashing, it's completely teeth-less.
You can choose to either study religion or non-religious view-of-life-stuff (Elämänkatsomustieto), and as far as I know, being a member of the church doesn't forbid you to choose either one. The classes are about aspects of different religions, admittedly weighted on the Lutheran church. This is all useful, general knowledge, since religions are an important thing to know about. The classes don't try to force anyone in to the religion, they are thought as history and geography are. You don't get diplomas if you fail history, either.
The reason no one appears to "critizise or question the church or religion" is not that everyone has been brainwashed, but because religion really isn't such a big deal to vast majority of Finns. We Finns are private people, who like to go about our lives and keep our thoughts to ourselves, not needing organised ceremonies for that. There's nothing really to rebel against - the church has never told me what to do or not do.
Finally, I'd like to note that although I'm against the church tax and don't practice religion at all, I haven't resigned from the church since i) I'm lazy ii) It seems like making a statement, and I like to think through before making statements and iii) I don't want my burial to be a big expense to someone else and like to think that I support the upkeep of beautiful old churches.
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!
I think anyone who thinks that Finland is a theocracy needs to travel around a bit more themselves. We Americans are far more religious than any Scandinavian nation, and ancient, tax code fossils are not representative of how the nation actually views religion today.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"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?"
Mmmm, you are? It's been there for like 50 years as a memorial to the WWII war dead (N.B. cross is a pretty standard grave marker). I mean seriously, even freaking communist countries like Viet Nam allow religious icons on public land... and Christians are well in the minority there. If Japanese-Americans wanted to put up a Shinto memorial to the 442nd war dead in a park somewhere, I'd have no problem with it, nor should you.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
What you say makes obvious sense, but then again so does the idea that the earth is flat.
The US is much more of a theocracy and hot-bed of fundementalism than countries like Finland. When you're not listening, we often refer to it as 'the Iran of the western world'.
My take is that this is because the church is government controlled. The best way to make something tired, lazy and inefficient is to have government run it, and I don't think religion is any exception. So I think the extreme vitality, diversity and power of US churches is there exactly because they are not run or protected by the state, but have to compete with each other on a level playing field for souls, power and money.
By a similar logic, I don't foresee a great future for religion in Iran either. The people despise the ruling mullahs.
Actually the relationship between church and state keeps things away from fundamentalism;)
If only 10% of people (instead of like 90%) belonged to it, it'd be much more fertile ground for more extreme viewpoints.
I'd actually think it was pretty cool if the cross got replaced with a Shinto memorial. But that would never happen because you Christians are way too petty to ever allow something like that.
It may not sound like big news if 41000 people use a web service in some small country somewhere. But it is actually a huge effect. In a country of 5 million, nearly 1% of all people - including kids and pensioners - have resigned from a powerful institution with few clicks in the last couple of years. In US that would correspond to almost 3 million people!
Statistics.
And the Church is terrified. Thay are losing income at an increasing pace. They have already announced a need to shrink the number of priests and church workers in the future.
They're honest to let go people that have no good work scheduled to them. A state wouldn't be so kind as to keep labor ready in correlation to need, but to cause an insolvency to induct in the politic of unused service offsetting actual labor being rendered. It looks like the book of Job is being accurately used in the job security at that church. The clergy are being honest, and want no unnecessary burden to attach/tact/tax upon the congregation.
The Lutheran Church of Finland is still trying to defend it's bastion as a major institution on par with government, army and universities. The lutheran church in Sweden has already been kicked out from government protection and the process is beginning in Norway.
The tone in your words resonate of an unconditional dislike to a church. Whatever doesn't qualify as a church, is not to be trusted to minister on your behalf and to the generosoty of your credit.
The Chuch is still powerful - almost evil - consider this:
- Most don't even notice that 1.3% of their income is sucked out
- At the age of 14, kids have to go to religious camps where they are forced to attest their faith. When they graduate, they are rewarded with presents and told that "now they are adults". You might have thought state-churches are tame, but this a Brainwashing, and nothing else. Bloody sickening.
- Even today there is just one (or two?) graveyards for non-religious people - and the church loves it's monopoly - if you are as an atheist buried to church graveyard, you'll have to pay hefty extra.
- Religion is thought in school, and the 85% who are members, MUST attend and pass. Otherwise no diplomas are coming your way. Could we possibly use this time better? Maths, languages, anyone?
- Due to all this brainwashing, is it no wonder that many people in Finland are completely unable to critizise or question the church or religion. Even though nobody talks about it, it is somehow accepted as a part of "culture".
1.3% of income is all necessary for an efficient government (not Government/person). If they didn't notice their money moving to the church services, and don't notice any improvement to their quality of life in the form of actual church services, then there is a refund in order. I agree that it is sickening for a church to qualify who has committed adultery and who is not, especially whhen the scope of language divides the innocent nature in children to act like an adult in concert with the Queen of the damned. With your evidence of graveyards, according to my Bible, evince that a church that holds graveyards is a grave itself; the Lord Jesus says to "let the dead burry the dead." And don't try my ears to say what religion is or not; all law is a matter of religion; your anger is misplaced at religion and the truth that upholds and established religion, when it need to be re-directed to the misplaced trust a malevolent court wards over you as the subject in controversey (become a court of competent jurisdiction already). There needs to be taught reciprocal thought process, to audit all manner of teaching; starting with "faith" defined as "the evidence of things not seen."
In this perspective the phenomenon that is reported here is perhaps THE best internet movement that has ever taken place in Finland. Lot's of money and people are involved, and I hope, some cleansing of th
without prejudice
A tithe is either a [[tax]] when enforced by the state, or a [[membership fee]] when enforced by a church. Tithing according to the Old Testament of the Bible should be 10%, but the New Testament, which lays down the law to be followed by present day Christians, merely suggests we joyfully give that we may receive. 2 Corinthians 9:7Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
:-)
A tithe is not a tax. The root cause of "tax" is to resist and impede an unlawful conveyance or use of property. Tax is originally not monetary in nature, but in the perspective of persons ministered through society is the conveyance attached with fiscal operation. Thereby, all tax exercised through an office of trust, either public or private, is "attachment" evinced in Negotiable Instruments Law. If satisfactory performance is "payed", then the "tax" is displaced. Coercing services upon a person, and demanding a tax of that person for the services rendered or not, is unlawful; it's not a tax, but a lien executed with deception and quiet title.
An example; it is thought that "street-sweeping" and "garbage collection" services are unconditional and with necessity or lawful, when in fact they are voluntary and optional. About 2 years ago, a lady locked her motor-carriage shut near the road without a key at the house. The lady 'phoned a message to move the motor-carriage before it could prevent the "street-sweeping" service from rendering service. A good 15 minutes before the "street-sweeping" service personel arrived or even seen with a "parking witch" in towe, I sweeped and panned the entire road reasonablly clean of debris and left a large non-negotiable Note attached to the broom leaned to the bumper of the locked motor-carriage. Service was already rendered, and it was not lawful to try the matter again/twice/double-jeopary because the true Street Sweeper already appeared and was payed for his 15 minutes of labor. The "parking witch" arrived, studied the Note, shook his head as he motored away as to figure there is to be found prey to obstruct a quasi-contracted "street-sweeping" service.
What does that have to do with tithe? Check my post history, here where I reason tithe is simply a "measure of ten" and applied in de jure church as one of ten children dedicated to perform church services. Tithe in the form of money is deception. A tax is an attachment to impede or resist an act or performance. A tithe is voluntary. There is a lot of corruption moving about. Lazy people throw fines (an excessive executive order) and coerce people to voluntarily admit into staged entertainment/detainment at theatres with tickettes.
At least I know I'm speaking to someone reasonable.
without prejudice
I wonder ... is paying the church tax helps you advance into heaven?!
There is no tax. To enter the door, you need a key. The key can't be bought. The key is carried by the living. Many of the people ask if it's a monkey.
without prejudice
I was there. I realy liked it when he took one of Peter's knives to sever the meatballs from the spaghetti-monster. Jesus then threw the spaghetti-mnonster corpse across the room. Judas ran over to the pastafarian husk that lay at the floor and tried to reason whether the pasta hit the wall or the wall hit the pasta. hmmm...there is an ol' Pastafarian Brady-bunch moral to this story.
I am the nightmare of nightmares.
Today, a State is divisioned/separatged to administer executive remedy with an office of public trust. A de jure church can only minister that original in the charter (Holy Bible). Look at the first section of the Law of Nations, and you'll discover the state is the people while an independent state is known simply by a change in character as "State". Strange how a "S" can change from a "s", to mean the difference between subordinate or independent? Perhaps this has more to evince the disappearance of "the Great State" or whatever lingo they were once known throughout the "Great Registry." A church does more to move the role of the state; the church congregation as legislative and the judiciary is the clerck/clergy. A judge doesn't subpoena evidence/faith into the room of negotiation/court without disqualification (joinder to one of the parties); a judge only acknowledges dishonour or disgrace from another's interest in a matter.
Didn't anyone remind you that "all law is a matter of religion"? Law is upheld by oath to be Trusted with property to held on another's benefit. Think of law as the grantor, in a matter of Trust law. A state doesn't separate from a church, and that's a verry ill-balanced metaphor or paradigm to employ. This is true because the origin of that chaotic statement would trace back to the masonic routes of the United States of America/organic (aka Jefferson, Franklin, et al) co-existing to the several states (Virgina, Pennsylvania, et al). The united "States" in terms of Law of Nations as was chartered under, are said to be Nation-states competing against their grantor/state. That is why it is said Massachusettes is a state while "State of Massachusettes" is a Nation-state within a state (unlawful). This is not allowed even by the Constitution, and was only possible because the original state was revoked by the then King. If the King reclaimed his estate, then the Nation-state would be at second-rate birth-right and thereby quashed of any claim. That could be why the United States can't prove it is de jure, because it's verry founding stemps from National Emergency and Executive Orders implicitly admitting a perpetual state of war to prevent the de jure claim.
without prejudice
right out of the brothers karamazov. you're so cool.
As much as I agree with you, you've chosen some awful examples.
IIRC the Spanish Armada was sent on behalf of the Pope to punish Elizabeth for her father leaving the Catholic church, her and her brother supporting the reformation and the nation of England for letting them get away with it. Sure, the spanish wanted power rather than piety, but the pope was in on it.
The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (templars) were a religious order famed for their unorthodoxy later on in the order's existance. Phillip IV was a close ally of the current pope at the time, all of his actions against the order had papal blessing whether they were the pope's idea or not.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
I challenge you to rationally justify your expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Seriously, philosophers have been trying to do that for hundreds of years and none has yet succeeded.
I wouldn't want to inadvertently find myself inside an imaginary church.
Come to think of it, perhaps they keep the invisible pink unicorn in there.
lalala
A father and his twelve-year-old son, carrying bibles, smartly dressed. Apprehensive kid says something about a mission. I interrupt, take option three, but thanks anyway, close the door. All day I wondered whether I had been unjust to the poor boy—perhaps I should have heard him out—but how can one have a sensible exchange about religion with a child? It took me off guard; I hope he had better luck elsewhere.
In Spain we have separation but sadly we have concordato. Help us to fight them. http://concordato.org/
It is of course not that easy that one is the cause and one is the cover. The religion and the social conditions at the end of the middle ages were both necessary conditions for the crusades. Making social conditions the cause of wars is like make humans a cause for war. Humans are indeed a necessary condition for wars, but there are humans that don't go to war, and there are people in miserable social conditions that don't go to war. Something else is needed.
However, christianity in itself has a number of characteristics that makes it prone to be a cause or cover for wars. For one, it is universalistic: That is, it claims it is the only path to salvation. Hence it is a good deed to bring another human to the belief. The degree to which the aims sanctify the means have varied through the centuries, but the basic principle has lasted into modern days (today, many churches aren't as absolutist in their views of this principle, but this is a fairly recent development).
There's another understanding of this scene:
Peter says, "You're the Messiah, God's Son."
Jesus says, "You're Peter."
Jesus built his church on the bedrock that God and human came face to face and each recognized the other for who he was.
It would be morally wrong, unless there is a provocation.
bin Laden claims many were in place, his attack did not come out of the blue.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The Church shouldn't have any influence over the state - big business doesn't like competition.
I am anarch of all I survey.
"remember that many of these people came from a country whose king destroyed an entire religion just to get a divorce"
Creating a splinter is not "destroying" anything, unless you want to consider every other Christian offshoot as "destroying" what it spawned from.
"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!"
So because someone else is going through the same (or worse) treatment, we should feel grateful and not want better for ourselves and our government? Absolute bullshit.
On top of this, ALL businesses pay a certain percentage of church-tax. It doesn't matter if none of the employees are members of the church, hell even Muslim-owned businesses pay taxes to the Lutheran church.
If your turban feels tight, you'd better return that brand new Nokia of yours ... and on the other hand, a Nokia phone is just what your Bible should have next to it for the "secular" connecting of people. ;) Yes, they don't really advertise being Finnish (they prefer being thought of as a Japanese corp), but part of their revenues end up paid out for these churches too.
But it's not that the church is scared of losing money so much -- it has more investments (and yearly corporate tax income) that it can comfortably stash away. (Hell, they're probably the largest Finnish entity doing ethical investing.) The church's problem is the same as Microsoft's: once it gets below 90% "market share", it's former dominance and assiciated glitter is gone no matter how much it has in the bank.
ARG!!! - I can't believe I'm getting into this stupid thread...
I just have one point: You can't rely on those kind of reports as an
acceptable version of english - words are often used to obscure rather
then inform. So, you will see words shackled into tortured arrangements
that strongly imply one thing while actually meaning another.
That is why words such as 'tasked' and 'realignment' become so popular.
Then again, the way normal people use the language - double negatives, 'got'
instead of 'had'...
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
I don't want to come off as mean, because you have some interesting interpretations here, but if you formated the post into the more common paragraph/sentence structure it would be much easier to parse. And your shift key obviously works, but you missed capitalizing every sentance. Also, the extra spaces break the flow more than you may have realized. And finally, a few citations would strengthen your position.
But hey, it's easy to be a critic...
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Despots (and thence there governments) derive their authority from fear.
Monarchs (and thence there governments) derive their authority from historical happenstance.
You meant democratic governments. Are there any current examples of democracy??
>>> "I know the Church has never been big on literacy for the masses"
... that same church in which thousands of believers (monks) spent nearly every day transcribing scripture, that preserved a huge canon of early literature by creating more (surviving) copies than any other early book ...? That same church that has the most published book in (known) history as it's central text? That same church whose people went to all corners to teach literacy - admittedly to serve an agenda of Bible knowledge.
Never?
What you mean is that in the established church of the middle ages many "bishops" abused their positions of power keeping latin scripture in order to subvert the masses from coming in to contact with the truth.
Sorry to respond to your flame, but come on. You can do better than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
No form of science has ever furnished a rational basis for even the most trivial future expectation.
You'd make a good Kierkegaard.
You simply believe what you want to believe. That's your vaunted "rationality."
Persuade me that common sense is better justified than the wildest mystical lunacy.
"Common sense is sensible," by the way, is no better a justification than "mysticism is mystical" might be.
I believe that I am a tree.