Slashdot Mirror
Internet Dismantling the State Church In Finland
An anonymous reader writes "A Finnish secular web site that facilitates electronic resignation from the Finnish state church gained wide attention in the media this week. A gay rights TV panel discussion was followed by thousands resigning from the church. On Wednesday, 2633 people resigned through the web site, which is more than all the resignations in July. The Internet is secularizing the Finnish with increasing speed; over 90% of resignations in Finland go through the site administered and marketed by hobbyists driving Finland towards a secular, non-religious state."
Ireland has had a popular equivalent in http://countmeout.ie/ for some time.. It seems it has been so popular that, as of August, the catholic church actually changed their 'canon law' so that defection is no longer available!!
More likely its that Finns dont want to pay the 1.3% church tax that church members have to pay.
The Danish website https://www.ingenkirkeskat.dk/ (no church tax dot dk) has been up for a few years. I used it to resign from the church, and got the additional bonus of saving 0,80% income tax. The site says he (it's a one man operation) has saved Danish tax payers DKK 123'535'000 (EUR 16'500'000) so far. His fee is DKK 99 (EUR 13), because in Denmark it has to be done in hardcopy.
Yes. This particular incident comes from the fact that the majority of people (according to polls) do agree that equality is a good thing and that gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children.
However, the church disagrees, and because they have a government-given monopoly on defining marriage, there's a bit of a crisis now.
(You can kind of get a marriage-like thing from the government, but it's legally not the same thing.)
The premise for the televised debate was the rights of gay couples vs. the rights of heterosexual couples. What gay couples have here is a registered partnership, which has the inheritance and most social support rights of marriage, but excludes any adoption rights. Therefore most gay parents are marked as single parents, but still don't get full monetary support, since they are in a relationship (this does apply to non-married heterosexual couples as well, where the other party is not the biological parent). Also there was talk about the "stigma" of being in an apartheid-type of relationship, basically they want to change the civil marriage law so it would be gender neutral. This ofcourse brings out all the God-fearing mongrels with their Biblical opposition.
What really makes the situation funny is the fact that even the Evangelical-Lutheran church itself is pretty divided on the issue. There have been a few (primarily female) priests that have blessed gay couples after they have registered their civil relationship. Also the fact that most of the big religions have the right to issue marriage certificates, but still have the choice to refuse service to anyone they don't deem fit is an issue to some. The biggest issue is the state church (Evangelical-Lutheran) getting funds directly from taxes, which are paid by all members registered to the church. The average payout is 1,5%. They calculated the church lost 1,5 M in tax revenue for next year due to this debate.
Basically, it's the church that opposes giving legitimate status to families already in existence, and because we have a Christian party in the parliament, they're fighting the lefties and the greens all the way. Even getting the current partnership law thru took multiple tries over several terms.
It's not too weird if one looks at their god from the perspective of dystheism, maltheism or gnosticism (if only those weren't also suppressed a long time ago as "heretics" - but hey, it's something the Demiurge would want ;p )
Also, one old Usenet posting writing about it much better that I could in a reasonable amount of time. Maybe this one, too.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I would also point out that it's a church, by definition it's supposed to represent the will of $deity not the opinions of the general population or its members. In the old testament God drowned the world except for those on Noah's Ark. He obliterated entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins. The argument that it is right because it is popular is quite well contradicted in scripture. There are many references to staying on the narrow path, that to stray and be sinful is easy while to stay true and rightous is hard. That people accept sin as normality is to them only proof the world has become a den of sin again. It is not a reason to question their own beliefs.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
As of 14.00 EEST today, 10,000 persons (~0.2% of the population) have left the state church in three days. The pace seems to be somewhat accelerating even.
As far as PR catastrophes go, this is a fairly major one. The average tax paid by a church member is 300€/year, so this means annual losses of at least 3 M€.
>>The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
> Maybe people wouldn't have such a problem with Christians and other religious folk if they were out in the world living the way they believe they should even with temptation around them
Indeed, the New Testament speaks to this very issue:
I Corinthians 5:9-12
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
The idea being, if someone inside the church is immoral, they should be ostracized, but there is no reason to judge anyone who is not a Christian. Christians are only to judge internally, not externally. Kinda puts the whole right wing gay-bashing, sex-focused BS in it's place doesn't it? The "leave this world" reference meaning that Christians are NOT to isolate themselves at all. So, don't isolate yourselves, and don't judge. Exactly the opposite of the hypocrisy we see today.
Citation needed.
The oldest part of the bible dates from as early as the 13th Century BCE. Quite old, but whether it's ancient depends on your definition of "ancient". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#cite_note-2)
"While it is true that homosexuality is wrong.."
Well, the bible does say that a man sleeping with a man as with a woman is "To'ebah", usually translated as 'an abomination before God' (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) - right after it says that shaving or getting a haircut are To'ebah (Leviticus 19:27), eating fruit from a young tree is To'ebah (Leviticus 19:23), and having sex with a woman when she's having her period is To'ebah (Leviticus 18:19). The Mosaic code also requires children who curse their parents to be killed (Leviticus 20:9), anyone who commits adultery to be killed (Leviticus 20:10), and the daughter of a priest who engages in prostitution to be burned alive (21:9).
Funnily enough, self-proclaimed Christians who rant on about how the Bible condemns homosexuality are usually clean shaven. Theologically, that's actually fine, since multiple passages in the New Testament say that Mosaic Law (the long list of dos and don'ts in Leviticus) doesn't apply to Christians (Romans 6:14; 7:1-14; Galatians. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Corinthians. 3:7-18). Which is great and all, but nowhere in any of those passages in the New Testament does it say "except for that stuff about men sleeping with men - that's still a no-no".
So pick one - either the Mosaic condemnation of men sleeping with men was tossed out with the condemnation of shaving and the condemnation of eating fruit from a young tree and the requirement to kill your children when they curse you - or all of those things still apply and you're probably committing just as many abominations before God as the average male homosexual.
Then think of it this way. Protestants say "RTFM, but if you don't care to, every Sunday we'll have Cliff's Notes available in form of a sermon." And if you don't agree with the intrepretations given (they are always properly cited so that you can check yourself and see), then you should shop churches until you find one that agrees more closely with your views.
Learn to love Alaska
I may not be a hebrew scholar, but I do have easy access to the hebrew, and that word to'ebah (H8441, "morally abominable") is not used in ANY of the verses you mentioned, except for the 2 regarding homosexuality. As a quick run down:
Regarding haircuts (19:27)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), meaning "you shall not"
regarding fruit from a tree (19:23)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), again "you shall not"
regarding sex during a woman's period (18:19)- the word is 'lo' (H3808), "you shall not"
In other words, the word used for homosexual relationships is a completely different word than the one used in any of the passages you mentioned. I would be interested to know where you got your facts.
Regarding the laws that we no longer follow, yes, it does make a good deal of sense. As I pointed out, most of those things are "you shall not"s, ie, the only moral weight of them is what God has applied through the law. When it is called "morally abominable", and that is listed as the REASON not to do it ("...FOR it is an abomination unto the Lord..."), that would indicate that it is not a part of the law that no longer applies, but as something that you dont do BECAUSE it is an abomination-- much like we continue to consider adultury and premarital sex sinful.
The Mosaic Law had a specific purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled, and so no longer applies in the same way. There is, and always has been, a completely seperate moral code that continues to apply--dont steal, dont murder, dont lie, dont sleep with anyone who is not your spouse, and so on, which I am not sure if you would consider part of the Mosaic Law, but are nevertheless still in effect today.
Its actually rather astonishing that you would make such a bold, and completely incorrect, claim-- anyone who wishes to check for themselves can download esword and the hebrew package and check for themselves; or simply check the wording in any OT translation-- if the word "abomination" is used in several places, theres a 95% chance it came from the same hebrew word (thats one of the things they try to maintain in translating).