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?
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
You bet money is more important than some old Jewish bloke who lived 2000 years ago!
Dismantle is indeed part of common english, please get a good dictionary (Meriam-Webster online, for example). Deconstruct however is a literary term, a type of criticism.
"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.
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.
stuff |
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?
Slashcode turned my "does not equal" sign into a question mark. Deconstruct != dismantle. Contrary to the implication of the title, this article has nothing to do with deconstruction.
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.
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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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.
My blog
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.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
No, the problem in Finland(I live here) is that the Lutheran church is so dominant(in numbers, but not in influence) that the state has agreed to help them collect money, using the our regular taxation system. This is NOT an action of a state separated from the church, and also unfair against the other religions in the country. Mind you, the official line of the state is that they have nothing to do with the church. Yet almost all governmental ceremonies are atleast partially Lutheran, considering the location(church) or content(psalms, biblereading).
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.
I used this webpage to resign last year, for purely faith-related reasons. Some regions of the country do not allow resigning by email, even if you add all the vital information. I was sent a letter home with a form to fill in and sign, and a return envelope. I was officially not part of the church 5 weeks after I used that webpage. This because we have what they call a "regret-month", which basicly just makes you wait 4 weeks before it makes it official. Like I haven't thought through my choice BEFORE sending in my resignation.
She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
what!?!? missionary is subversive? I thought that was the one position that wasn't going to get me into trouble.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
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
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?
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.
...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.
...ah, how little of the mechanics of love you know. *any* position will get you into trouble...
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
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.
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.
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.
I'd still be a little concerned that they need an imaginary friend to tell them not to kill...
"A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
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.
There is no state church in Finland per se, and citizens are not born into Lutherian church by default. Their parents can also choose otherwise, ie. not to became members of ANY church.
>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.
Haven't been to Utah much, have you? Or Idaho? Where I live, I have *three* completely different religions showing up semi-regularly at my door asking me to join them. I always say I can't coz I'm too busy waxing the goat in preparation for MY religion and ask if they'd like to join. They always say no, even though my religion involves cute blond women and free chocolate chip cookies. Shows how smart THEY are.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
"Deconstruction" is almost universally understood to refer to a specific sort of literary analysis.
In the US and France this is true. In other places, however, the more archaic usage is more common. It is often used to refer to "demolition" or "dismantlement," but with an orderly, methodical connotation. Since this article is about Finland, I suspect they probably repeated the usage they heard from sources there.
I suspect a more appropriate word in the title would have used a form of the verb "to erode,"...
I disagree. Erosion implies a natural process, whereas this was a directed use of technology. That seems an inappropriate connotation to me.
Please educate yourselves.
Please get over yourself and realize your interpretation of something is not the only one. Language is fluid and varied. On a forum devoted to technology it is inappropriate and off topic to complain about spelling, grammar, or word usage that does not prevent you from understanding the meaning of the writing. Besides, you wouldn't want anyone to sit here and rip apart your every word and phrase, despite it being immaterial to the topic at hand. I hope the moderators mark you as "offtopic" for you certainly are.
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
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).
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.
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.
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?
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."
Article 4, Section 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights , signed but not ratified by the U.S., and ratified by most central american countries:
The U.N. Declaration of the Rights of the Child
For crying out loud, abortion is almost entirely illegal in Ireland. But I suppose South American, Central American, and Ireland aren't Western countries?Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
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").
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!"
My standpoint is that a child in the womb is a special case. Pregnancy is different because the baby is literally living inside of its mother. I think that a person's body is their absolute domain. It's the one thing that you, or I, or a pregnant woman should have absolute control over. So I think she gets to kill it (or him/her, if you like) if she wants. Because I think her right to decide how she uses her body supercedes the child's right to live. If there were an alternative that allowed her to stop bearing the child but not kill it, I might be in favor of outlawing abortion. Now that I read my previous post again, "Do what you please about it" isn't quite what I meant. I probably should have said, "Do what is necessary to stop it." If it were possible to move it to an artificial womb or a surrogate mother, then outlawing abortion would be another matter.
It differs from a born infant's dependance on its mother or a patient's dependance on a hospital because in neither of those cases is a person forced to use their body in a way they don't want to. It's not about the child's dependance on its mother; it's that the one right supercedes the other. While I lean towards calling abortion morally wrong, I think that forcing a person to use their body in a way they don't want to is morally wronger. Or at least as wrong. It's her call to make, but that doesn't mean both alternatives are right.
I don't argue that a fetus isn't a human being. That's kind of a bitch move. For that matter, I don't think it makes a difference whether it is or not. In a few months it's *going* to be one, so it doesn't make sense to me to treat it with different moral standards.
Pregnancy is avoidable. I think it's a bad thing if a girl gets herself knocked up then has daddy pay to get the kid killed. It's especially stupid since she could have prevented it so easily. She's definitely going to Hell for it (not that I believe in Hell). But it's her body, and it's between her and the gods.
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.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Pregnancy is different because the baby is literally living inside of its mother. I think that a person's body is their absolute domain.
Did you see the Simpson episode where Wigam (what's his name? - the police guy) tells Homer he can do whatever he wants to someone who comes into his house? So then Homer's like "hey Ned, come over" and grabs a club. And as Ned walks over Chief Wiggam says "it doesn't work if you invite them in".
Same principle here. A woman - or any person - has absolute sovereignty over their own domain unless they are the ones responsible for bringing someone else there. It's like (and this is a weird, stretched example - but a valid one) if I were to kidnap somebodys small child and surgically insert it into myself - does that mean I can do whatever the hell I want with it? Because now it's in me? NO - because I'm responsible for it being there in the first place, so I can't play that card.
Same deal.
And finally, don't act like in American law or morality you can do whatever you want with your own body. You can't inject certain substances and you can't commit suicide. There are limits here.
So again, BECAUSE the child is inside the woman as a result of of the woman's own choice the "my body" argument is not as valid, and the childs right to LIVE trumps the womans (self-compromise) right to have dominion over her own body (for a limited period of time).
One more thing. Imagine we could create an artificial womb - what then? I'd say a woman has the right to expel the child, but would then (as with a man) by financially obligated to it. You can't just create a kid and walk away.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
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.
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.
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.
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?