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."
And note that what is driving people away is the immorality of the church. Which is ironic, given that the church probably defines itself as the high bastion of morality.
Sounds nice but at least here in America the problems mainly come from protestant denominations, particularly southern and midwestern ones...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Only $42? and how much church tax do you pay every year?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Living in NZ this astounds me! When I was a kid, mum used to give us coin each (20c, 50c or so) to put in the collection basket at our Catholic church. And I know some of the fundie religions (especially the evil Destiny Church) get all their fools to donate 10% of their income. But an actual church tax - now that's messed up.
I don't think there's such thing as paying to register/deregister at a church either.
Anyway, since I declined confirmation in my teens I'm now a reformed Catholic - an atheist.
And how many believers would choose to formally break links with their church for such small (considering the eternity...) savings?
No, those people shouldn't have been counted as members a long time ago. It's just that up to know they didn't care, even despite 1.3% (hey, good for some traditional services)
One that hath name thou can not otter
..yet the pope pissed on Purgatory, stating that was not in line with the church's modern views.
Sorry, but RyanFenton is right. Faith and belief have little in common with organized religion. Organized religion is about manipulation, not faith.
So church does not equal faith.
But then, I'm against both.
I'm personally not religious, but I have no problem with people who are, as long as they don't act stupidly (being an American, this is something I see far too often). When taking a stupid position on a social issue can be observed directly to lead to a giant spike in defection, along with a corresponding giant financial loss, I think this gives the Church of Finland plenty of incentive to reconsider their social policies to keep up with social progress. Basically, they need to keep their customers happy for the money to continue to roll in. When opting out is easy, that just makes their work harder.
I have no doubt that this will be a good thing for the Finnish church in the long run, and it might be a good thing for the Christian religion altogether, because the progress that will be made by the Finns will, with time, possibly trickle into the church teachings in other countries.
Ignoring of course who supposedly gave us that reason; an act which to fully get appreciated would need now to be... relinquished? OK... (nice how that faith works BTW, simply dispelling taking a broader look at what it holds dear, also just on the basis of where that look is hosted). And yes, congregations and their rituals evolved to induce mystical feelings, we know that. There are much easier ways if you want those.
Yes, people are generally bastards (which is of course the most straightforward reason why their gods and organizations are, too). However, certainly when looking at all the stats of positive societal factors, there is a very strong correlation between them and levels of organic secularism in a given place. BTW I can't speak much about French Revolution or Khmer Rouge, but I had a decently intimate insight into workings of European-area Warsaw Pact - and "strangely" enough, virtually all Party members were closet Christians, their kids baptized, attending services in the country, etc. With general level of religiosity still there and, at most, regimes usually trying to introduce on top of it their new state religions.
(there's another curious correlation BTW - take a look at a world map, take note of places which are historically strongly "old" Christian; now take note of places which had major problems with "communism" - notice any interesting overlap? I suspect it boils down to continuing reverberations of strong feudalism typical of those societies; certainly some sort of continuum - you thinking how it's a case of clear opposition, how it is sensible to use it as such, is another confusion on your part similar to one pointed out by the first of linked usenet postings)
One that hath name thou can not otter
The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
Maybe people wouldn't have such a problem with Christians and other religious folk if they were out in the world living the way they believe they should even with temptation around them, where otherwise can see them behaving kindly and peacefully and living a wholesome life? You know, kind of like Jesus did?
If the only way you can keep yourself from doing what you consider wrong is to hide from it and pretend it doesn't exist, that doesn't make you good in my opinion, it makes you weak and likely a hypocrite who would jump at the first opportunity given to do whatever it is you consider wrong.
"While it is true that homosexuality is wrong" - quote from parent poster
No, it is only true that an ancient work of fiction alleges this. Homosexuality is a normal part of human existence. In terms of incidence its slightly more common than, say, red hair - is being ginger also wrong?
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
It's not like the question of homosexuality is the only moral question the bible got wrong. The bible condones slavery, stoning people to death for not observing the sabbath, and lots of other bad stuff. A careful reading shows that the bible is just full of stuff that most moral people now find wrong.
Most Christians decide right and wrong the same way atheists do: modern secular liberal thought that since the enlightenment has told us it is wrong to harm other people.
Anarchists never rule
And what is the Bible's argument that homosexuality is wrong? Oh, wait, there is no argument. The authors of the Bible just expect us to believe it on faith. And I will not condemn people on such a basis.
But the Bible is objectively wrong about a great many things. Perhaps if that weren't the case, people would give your Bible-based arguments more credence.
As it is, I could just as easily quote L. Ron Hubbard to demonstrate the "wrongness" of a great many things that you probably don't see anything wrong with. Both sources have similar credibility.