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."

85 of 547 comments (clear)

  1. Moral authority by thue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Moral authority by RichiH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's not ironic as people automatically hold them to higher standards for exactly that reason.

    2. Re:Moral authority by Ecyrd · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.)

    3. Re:Moral authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are there specific instances of the Finnish state church being out of sync with modern morals?

      I don't know enough about the specifics but this story seems to imply that they are adopting a position of promoting homophobia. Even amongst those uncomfortable with homosexuality (which I'd say quite a few people are), I think most people would consider actively promoting that sort of prejudice to be immoral.

    4. Re:Moral authority by Cobrian · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Moral authority by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since this exodus was caused by gay bashing it looks more like the morality the church preaches is no longer suitable for the modern times.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Moral authority by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What has the Catholic church got to do with it? This is about Finland, which is not a catholic country.

      From the article:

      A record number of Finns seceded from the Evangelical Lutheran Church on Wednesday.

      .

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re:Moral authority by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not familiar with this particular church, but churches in general tend not to be democratic - the common people in the pews don't actually get to vote, or have any influence at all over church policy. If you want to alter a church from within, you can't do it as an ordinary member. The only way to do so is to join the clergy, which does give you some say over the policies - an influence increasing as you go up in the ranks. As going up in the ranks depends upon agreeing with the existing doctrine, this is a very slow approach. The only other way to achieve change is to simply leave, and hope that the church realises it's refusal to update is costing it members and donations.

    8. Re:Moral authority by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's not ironic as people automatically hold them to higher standards for exactly that reason.

      Give me a time in history when people have held the church to a higher moral standard.

      The church has been corrupt at least since about 300AD around the time of the Council of Nicea (and it was political before then). You want popes who kill and rape and are hungry for power? You want priests who abuse? You want catamites? You want greed? You want hypocracy? You want genocide? The church has it all. They are the poster boys for the Seven Deadly Sins. Why do you think they call them "Cardinal" Sins? Because all of the Cardinals commit them.

      No, brother, the church has never, ever been held to a "higher standard". If anything, people have come to expect that priests will be alcoholic and/or pedophiliac/lazy/arrogant/greedy. It's become a cliche. We're pleasantly surprised when we find one who isn't.

      And it's not just the Roman Church. If I say "pastor of a megachurch" what's the first thing that comes to mind? Some hairsprayed, holier-than-though, gay-hating, right-wing prig who gets caught sniffing crank off the butt of some rent-boy.

      "Higher standard" my ass.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Moral authority by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A big part of the protestant reformation was precisely that the reformers did not think that a church had absolute authority about ANYTHING (sola scriptura), including how you should live your life. Protestant churches (ideally) DONT run around telling you how to live your life; they direct you to the Bible, and tell you to get your instruction there (not that there arent churches who dont do this, but it goes against a lot of what the reformation was about).

    10. Re:Moral authority by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The irony is that the Bible pretty much says Jesus was gay, or at least bisexual. He hung around with half naked young men and lived with one "as a man lives with his wife." It was only later that various saints and popes came along and decided it was bad.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Moral authority by andymadigan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I admit I know nothing of Finnish law, but in the U.S. (and I believe most other Western countries) you CAN get an actual marriage from the government. It's real and carries the exact same legal weight as a marriage. I'm not talking about a civil union, that's totally different. You can be married by a justice of the peace, it's done at city halls and the like every weekday in every city. However, when gays tried to get married they were refused marriage licenses. In some areas it was found that this had no basis in law. In others (including NY where I live) it was found that the state could refuse marriage licenses but couldn't refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages.

      A civil union is not and never will be the same, they don't survive across state lines, let alone national borders (try having a civil union from New Jersey recognized in Canada, or even Massachusetts).

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    12. Re:Moral authority by FiloEleven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have never seen that in practice. I don't think a church based on RTFM would be very popular. Protestants still go to church and still listen to a preacher give a sermon on what he (or his parent organization) interprets a set of verses to mean.

      One of the Catholic Church's arguments during the Reformation was that people needed help interpreting scripture. Now they went further to say that because of this regular people shouldn't have access to the text, which is going too far and does tend to foster the Church's self-serving tendencies. But most people who care about what the Bible says do seek help in interpreting it, and it's opaque enough to allow hundreds of denominations with differing beliefs to flourish.

      Sola scriptura looks good on paper, but the fact that the Bible supports wildly different interpretations means it is less clear on many important issues than Luther realized.

    13. Re:Moral authority by Kizor · · Score: 2, Informative

      The church holds parish elections, parish being the basic territorial and administrative unit, every four years. All members ages 16 and up (18 and up until just recently) are eligible to vote, and all members ages 18 and up are eligible to run. Each parish elects a parish board, its decision-making body, which is in charge of such things as the budget. The parish boards also elects a parish council, its executive body in charge of such things as hiring most employees, every two years. One person can serve on both the board and the council. A parish council is headed by a priest, though, who's known as a vicar.

      Parishes are grouped into nine dioceses, each of which is led by a bishop and has the two additional decision-making bodies of a diocese council (14 laymen, 7 priests, led by a layman) and a cathedral chapter (seven people, including the bishop, the vicar of the parish with a cathedral, and one layman). The chapter appoints parish priests and selects three candidates for vicar elections. All members of a parish ages 16/18 and up are eligible to vote for vicars, and write-in candidates are possible. Apparently a decision to turn vicar elections over to parish councils is on the table, to clear this mess up a bit.

      Bishops are elected by a diocese's priests, lecturers (an aging priest-without-the-frills position, I believe) and an equal number of laymen, whom parish boards select from their ranks. Ten voters can nominate a priest to run. A similar process elects the archbishop, the head honcho and general spokesman. The archbishop can only be bishopy to the oldest diocese, but heads the synod, the church's highest decision-making body that decides where the church stands (64 laymen elected by the parishes for four years, 32 priests, the bishops and a few hangers-on like the leader of the military chaplains) and the church government, the executive body (kirkkohallitus, the archbishop, two bishops and nine laymen, one from every diocese and elected by the synod, also known as those feet-dragging bastards at my folks' so clearly they have some say).

      Sorry to gab your ear off, but proper answers take time and this was surprisingly interesting. I'm pretty sure I was careful, though I had to translate some of this on the fly and of course don't know how the internal politics work. Larger cities have parish unions, which, have equivalents to boards and councils. This seems rather democratic to my untrained eye. A parish election is actually coming up next month, an archbishop was elected in the summer, and the new bishop of the capital city is a woman. There was an inspiring campaign where she and the other leading candidate, a man, both told people to ignore gender.

      How does this compare?

    14. Re:Moral authority by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    15. Re:Moral authority by Kumiorava · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, in Finland it's possible to marry at "maistraatti", which is similar to a city hall. Also the discussion about the church not allowing the gays to marry is slightly misunderstood. The real issue is that Finnish law doesn't allow gays to marry, they allow them to form a "registered union". Registered union is very close to a marriage in all but few issues:

      * Ability to adopt children outside of the family. (if there is already a child in the family they can adopt him/her)
      * Automatic right to take a new last name, application form needs to be filled by the couples in registered union.
      * Being "silently" discriminated. In many forms that people need to fill there are options for marriage and registered union, where the nature of the relationship is revealed and enables discrimination.

      Kristillisdemokraatit (christian democrats) just happen to be the most vocal opponent against recently introduced new marriage law which would make the marriage gender neutral in all of Finland. That's why church gets involved and the show in question of course had pretty intolerant church representatives presenting their views.

    16. Re:Moral authority by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Why do homosexual want to get married?

      There are legal and financial advantages to marriage. For example, employee health care benefits often extend to spouses.

      > So they can adopt children?

      In some jurisdictions, yes (though in the USA single parent adoption is legal and fairly common so that doesn't really apply here).

      > ...we just do away with marriage laws and set up a child rearing law.

      I agree. Marriage should not be any of the governments business. We already have lots of child-welfare laws that effectively regulate childrearing and the government is not allowed to regulate sexual conduct or cohabitation. These were the traditional reasons for marriage laws: what are they for now?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    17. Re:Moral authority by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

      The church has been corrupt at least since about 300AD around the time of the Council of Nicea (and it was political before then).

      Hell, why stop there? Go back enough and even the messiah was a convicted criminal! When the founder of your religion is more badass than Ron L. Hubbard, I think there's a message in that for all of us(*)

      (*) And that message is: Love is a verb... and verbs show action! Xenu, I'm gonna bust you up. I pity the fool!

  2. Down with the Finnish Taliban woo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Finland is a secular state, don't let the two state churches fool you. The Lutheran one is basically like the archetypical izzardesque Anglican Church or Unitarian Universalists (we drink more coffee though), and the Orthodox one is just kinda ethnic. Finns go to church for Christmas, weddings and funerals, and stay with the church mainly for those things (and godfathering or godmothering), not for some religious impulse.

    I myself resigned from the church a couple years back using eroakirkosta.fi after I started getting the local parish paper... to no avail, they just switched the recipient to my room-mate, who also subsequently decided to resign as well. The process was easy and painless, but don't tell my family: I might have to give back all those Confirmation gifts.

  3. Cool idea by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone should do the same for the Catholic Church. There are a great many "lapsed Catholics" who are nevertheless counted as full members in good standing when politicians decide what demographics are large enough to be worth pandering to.

    You have to explicitly request excommunication in order to be dropped from the church rolls, and that's really only the beginning of the process, as they may not let you go without a fight. It would be nice if there were a site that made it easier for those whose consciences no longer permit them to be counted among the Church's numbers to take this first step.

    1. Re:Cool idea by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."
    2. Re:Cool idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here in America the problems mainly come from people who believe stupid shit without demanding accountability from the people who told them the stupid shit. The stupid shit certainly isn't confined to one specific religious tradition or denomination.

    3. Re:Cool idea by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You have to explicitly request excommunication"

      Boring. Just make them WANT to excommunicate you. It's much more fun.

    4. Re:Cool idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not very easy to do. They forgive everything. Almost.

      "Oh, so you raped the boy you were babysitting? You did it while defecating on a picture of Jesus? Aha... And on one of Mary... Aha... And you've raped all of your son's classmates multiple times... Aha... The robbery-murder at the homeless shelter was you, as well? Aha... Anything else? Ah, the arson at the retirement home. I see..."

      "So what happens now father, excommunication?"

      "No, not at all. In fact, we're going to need you to come to church more often. Tell me, son, what do you do for a living?"

      "I'm a physician specializing in maternal health."

      "Ah, see son. There is good in you."

      "Specializing in abortions."

      "OK you're excommunicated. Off you go."

  4. Ireland has had this for some time by 2phar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!!

    1. Re: Ireland has had this for some time by bjoernfan · · Score: 5, Informative

      And in Sweden we have http://uturkyrkan.se/ ("Out of the church"). They have a nice slogan too; "Ut ur saligheten, in i verkligheten" meaning "Exit the divine, enter reality". I think the church tax is 0.9%, but that might include a "funeral fee".

    2. Re: Ireland has had this for some time by icebraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here the Portuguese Atheist Association has posted the instructions on how to send the letter of apostasy. It's not hard.

    3. Re: Ireland has had this for some time by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Luxembourg the site to leave church is called www.fraiheet.lu which translates to 'Freedom'.

  5. some statistics via google stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The latest statistics for those that have resigned via the eroakirkosta.fi service are available at http://mpolla.net/ek/ it's very clear to see a huge spike starting from 14.10.2010 just after the panel discussion mentioned. Myself being an atheist and a Secular Humanist I'm very pleased to see that when the state church made it's view of homosexuals clear, many people decided that they could no longer reconcile being a part of such a close-minded organization. My hope is that this is the "straw that broke the camels back" and will lead to the total separation of church and state in Finland like in Sweden (yes Finland still has a state church)

  6. Base Vs. Stakeholders by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a classic base Vs. stakeholders issue - when the organization (church in this case) fails to represent a view compatible with its base, and so long as it doesn't hold some critical resource away from its base, it will lose that base.

    The usual resolution of such disputes is not the organization changing though - it is either a major structural failure of the organization followed by minimal changes, or the organization deciding threaten its base into staying in more harsh terms. This happens particularly often in politics.

    Why do organizations tend to act this way? Because they virtually always exist to serve the stakeholders first, and not to serve the base they were designed to represent, whatever their origin. This is based on the idea that one has to serve one's own interest before they can logically be able to serve others - and carries through to individual members decisions to either serve the organizations resource gathering, or suppress others altruistic actions, more often than deciding to actually act altruistically through the organization. In other words, organizations select for selfishness towards the organization, and against other factors like serving those not as much a part of the organization.

    So, leave all you want - even if it threatens to destroy the church, as long as the stakeholders can be comfortable with the process, it's just those fickle folks straying from the true path. But the second a true insider nails something to the Church door, then suddenly its something meaningful.

    See also most group disputes inside the Democratic/Republican parties - it takes core insiders to cause the party to blink. The base falling apart is just unfortunate noise. Reality ignored all over the place, when it doesn't serve the interests of the core shareholders.

    Same thing with most businesses, unions, communes, mutual funds, and so on - they all organize, then tend to find themselves more unresponsive to their base over time.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Base Vs. Stakeholders by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    2. Re:Base Vs. Stakeholders by arikol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ..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.

    3. Re:Base Vs. Stakeholders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ..yet the pope pissed on Purgatory, stating that was not in line with the church's modern views.

      [citation needed] Do you mean limbo? It was never part of the Church's teaching, though some people may have written about the idea in a speculative / hypothetical way.

      Organized religion is about manipulation, not faith.

      [citation needed] So you're saying priests, bishops, and the pope are moustache-twirling Machiavellian types who just want to manipulate people? That they don't care about the spiritual and emotional well-being of their fellow faithful? To what end are they running this manipulation? Is it a 2000 year old secret conspiracy to accomplish... what exactly?

      Seriously, I never quite understood this aspect of people's dislike of organized religion.

  7. Fees by mischi_amnesiac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only thing that prevents me from leaving the catholic church in germany is the fee that I have to pay in order to get out. It's 30 (~42$) and a visit to the local court. I don't know if you have to pay a fee in finland.

    --
    "Die endgueltige Teilung Deutschlands - das ist unser Auftrag." - Chlodwig Poth
    1. Re:Fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing that prevents me from leaving the catholic church in germany is the fee that I have to pay in order to get out. It's 30 (~42$) and a visit to the local court. I don't know if you have to pay a fee in finland.

      No fee in Finland. I find it quite strange that an organization could charge a person for leaving it.

    2. Re:Fees by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only $42? and how much church tax do you pay every year?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  8. Re:judeo-christianism will strike back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids.

  9. Somehow I dont think its a loss of religious faith by voss · · Score: 5, Informative

    More likely its that Finns dont want to pay the 1.3% church tax that church members have to pay.

  10. Denmark has had a similar site for some time by morten+poulsen · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Denmark has had a similar site for some time by morten+poulsen · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can do the paper work yourself, if you want to. I chose to pay someone else to do it for me, so I have more time to troll on Slashdot.

      The EUR 13 includes sales tax (25%, EUR 3.25) and postage times two (to you and to the church, total about EUR 2) and then he has to pay income tax of the remaining EUR 7.75 (around 40%, EUR 3.10), leaving him with something like EUR 4.65.

  11. Church tax?!? by tbird81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Church tax?!? by Ecyrd · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not only income tax. Also corporations are taxed by the church, regardless of whether the personnel is a member of the church or not. The money is used to maintain graveyards and other infrastructure; including graveyards for people who don't belong to any organized religion.

  12. No, it means you don't understand irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    > So, people who go about telling how you should go about your life, cannot be held to a higher moral standard?

    You're reading what he said backwards. You don't appear to know what "ironic" means..

    He's saying it's perfectly normal to hold those with moral authority to a high standard, rather than it being the opposite of what one might expect (i.e. "ironic").

    1. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by kainosnous · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are all absolutely correct. There are so many people who call themselves Christians who don't believe or even know the Bible. Jesus had this to say about that:

      Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Matt 5:13

      The truth is that all people sin, and the saved are not exempt. The gospel is that God's son took the punishment for us if we recieve it and become God's children. However, he also said "If ye love me, keep my commandments".

      While it is true that homosexuality is wrong, so also is lusting after a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. Christ died for the homosexual as much as he died for anybody. Paul reminds Christians that "such were some of you". The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.

      --
      There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
    2. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.

      Posted from your bunker in Wako?

    3. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Jimmy+King · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by colinrichardday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While it is true that homosexuality is wrong

      Homosexuality may be condemned in the Bible, but is the Bible correct?

    5. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by CdBee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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
    6. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by yyxx · · Score: 2, Informative

      While it is true that homosexuality is wrong, so also is lusting after a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not married.

      Homosexuality isn't morally wrong; Christianity is morally wrong.

    7. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by yyxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.

      If the reason you don't sin is because you avoid all temptation, and/or because you desire reward or fear punishment in the afterlife, you have accomplished nothing. Christianity fails to be a moral religion because it preaches that kind of pseudo-morality.

    8. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by kerrbear · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>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.

    9. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by darkshadow88 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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)

    10. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by spasm · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

    11. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am a Christian, and I approve of this message.

      There is a reason it is called the 'Old' Testament.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    12. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by grexluporum · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing is, homosexuality isn't condemned in just the Old Testament. It's condemned in the new also. See the latter half of Romans 1

    13. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am unaware of any evangelical christians who think that christians arent prone to sin. There is a strong motivation not to sin, but you're painting a picture where christians are supposed to be without sin, and what hypocrites they are for failing in that regard. Its kind of like someone who has a problem with gambling moving his residence out of Vegas-- you can claim that he hasnt really changed anything, and that his problem remains, but I would remark that it was probably an exceptionally wise decision given his known tendencies.

      However, you are quite correct, secluding oneself from the world isnt really being faithful to what the bible calls for, either.

    14. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

    15. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Macrat · · Score: 2, Funny

      red hair - is being ginger also wrong?

      They are red due to being in league with the devil.

    16. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by canadian_right · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    17. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your selective understanding of Scripture, combined with outright lies, do not make a very effective argument.

      First off, of all the laws you cited, only lying with mankind as with womankind is called "To'ebah". Why you would say the other verses use it is beyond me.

      Secondly, interpreting Lev 19:27 as 'shaving or getting a haircut' is either daft or maliciously deceptive. The language is 'round the edge of your head' and 'mar the edge of your beard,' which even a basic investigation (or even just reading the verse in context) would lead one to understand that it refers to pagan customs for dedicating oneself to idols.

      Thirdly, your understanding of being free from the law is vastly different than what Scripture portrays. For example, read one verse along in Romans 6; verse 15 qualifies what it means to be free from the law. Freedom from the law does not negate its definition of morality, nor mean that people can just rampantly sin because they are 'not under the law.'

      Finally, even if you want to do away with the law in its entirety, homosexuality is called out as wrong in the New Testament. Romans 1:26-27 for example.

      The problem with the actions of many modern churches, however, is that there is an attempt to place Christian morals on the world. The Scriptural model, however, is to enforce morality within the church, and spread the gospel outside the church. Those outside the church have no means by which to judge morality and cannot be held accountable by the church for it.

    18. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by colinrichardday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Jimmy+King · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I never said I was mad at Christians. A lot of people are, though, as you can easily see when it comes up around here.

      I was raised going to church every Sunday, praying before every meal, etc. I believe the core teachings are great and I believe that there are some very genuinely good people involved in the religion (and every other religion). I also believe there are a lot of people who want to be good, but have imo misinterpreted much of the message and gotten too caught up in worrying about the wrong parts of the teachings.

      The misinterpretation is why I have stopped going to church since leaving my parents' house many years ago. Far too many religious people seem far too concerned over whether I said fuck or wore a t-shirt with a skull on it rather than whether I peacefully worked out the situation with some asshole or helped someone in need or was just generally courteous and held a door open for someone whose hands were full. To many of these people, such as the person I replied to, going out and being a witness to God (as the Bible puts it) to people means occasionally leaving your safe, protected group of to cram Jesus down someone's throat whether they want to hear it or not by preaching on the street corner or including how it's a great day to be a Christian and every little thing done that day was blessed by God. To me, being a witness to God means going out into the world and just generally being a good person. Bring up your religion when it's relevant, keep it to yourself when it's not. No one in any modern country is not a Christian because they've never heard of the religion, they're not a Christian because they have seen a reason to be one.

    21. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Upon what do you base your claim that anything is morally wrong?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by kainosnous · · Score: 2, Informative

      download esword and the hebrew package

      I prefer Xiphos. It's FOSS. Esword will work in Wine though.

      --
      There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
    23. Re:No, it means you don't understand irony. by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      “Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.”

      - Gregory House, M.D.

  13. A question for fellow Finns (please mod up!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First: Posting A/C since I don't want to beg for karma but would really appreciate it if many people see this since I've asked on plenty of Finnish forums but not gotten any good answer.

    When I used the site to leave the church, two elderly women rang my doorbell a few days later telling me that "Jesus has something to say to you, young man" to which I replied "tell him to send me e-mail" and shut the door. Half an hour or so later I noticed that they were still standing outside my door and whilst I obviously don't get intimidated by old ladies, I found it quite rude that they did that. Now my question for my fellow Finns is whether any of you have had the same experience? I don't know precisely who they were but obviously presume that they were from the church and suspect that they update their records manually and make such visits every time someone leaves the church. I might add that this happened in the city of Espoo.

  14. Re:Moral authority ... of what kind? by sznupi · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  15. In Greece by kyriosdelis · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..this can only be accomplished by visiting the register office in person. There are no fees, as far as I know.
    More information about leaving the (Greek Orthodox) Church, here.

    --
    I don't mind dating a girl that has been with everybody, as long as she had a good shower afterwards.
  16. Past and future news by tusam · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There was an article about this movement four years ago http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/136259
    And in that October_30th (531777) made a good point which I'll quote:

    ...yet I am a member of the state church. Furthermore, I'm happy to pay the small church tax. Why? 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.

    I think eventually after majority of the population has excluded themselves out of religious issues, we'll just get the increased number of islamic immigrants and right wing crazies fighting amongst themselves, collecting news headlines and escalating the issue.

  17. a Hot Topic in Belgium too by obUser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since just before summer it came to light that a Belgian bishop had been abusing his nephew throughout his career of spreading the love, 1.000s of Belgians are 'de-baptising' themselves online too, through a humanist site (ontdoping.be). The Belgian church is supposed to make a note of this in their baptism records, but no-one really knows if they do. As it happens, just this week, the Belgian archbishop released a book from which a single quote has made the media: "Aids has in it a kind of immanent justice". Off course this quote was designed to polarise and shock, as well as divert the attention from the pedo-scandal. Only now politicians are reacting by asking to review the church tax system, which is a system installed by Napoleon, and still in effect many countries that have been at some time under Napoleontic rule, ie. half of Europe. We don't have a percentage in our personal taxes reserved for religion, instead the state is responsible for the upkeep of all church buildings and church staff wages. And since Napoleon was a Catholic, only the Catholic church has these benefits. The word in parliament is now to change our tax declaration to mention how much we want to give to which church. My guess is if this passes as law, only some religious extremists will give them any money. For my part, they could make all religious organisations self-sufficient. Pity that y'all don't speak dutch cause we have a much more fun word for this: zelf-bedruipend: literally, let them drip on theirselves. I believe this = Even though I don't know, I pretend this to be true

  18. Re:Somehow I dont think its a loss of religious fa by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just out of curiosity does paying the tax guarantee you a spot in the cemetery? I know a couple Germans that pay the tithe simply so they will have a spot in the cemetery, otherwise the spot just gets "rented" and they cremate the body a couple years after you die.

  19. Re:Somehow I dont think its a loss of religious fa by sznupi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  20. This accountability is a good thing all around by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:Moral authority ... of what kind? by sznupi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  22. 10K broken by Ecyrd · · Score: 3, Informative

    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€.

    1. Re:10K broken by MikkoApo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here are graphs showing the increase:
      http://eroakirkosta.fi/static/ek-tilastot/vuodet.png
      http://eroakirkosta.fi/static/ek-tilastot/

      It's nice to see that kind of a reaction in Finland, usually things are way too gray here.

      The comments different sides of the debate have been hilarious. The regular church members are blaming the extremists, "You're alienating our members with your extreme views". The extremists are saying "what? we did nothing wrong, that's what is said in the bible, it's not our fault people are leaving". The ultra-extremists are blaming the extremists for not taking a strong enough stance. Public figures and celebrities are taking pot shots at the church and announcing their discontent. Magazines are publishing news about the record resignations.

  23. A Christian talking about irony? Oh boy... by Pezbian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just one example:

    A Christian cheats on their spouse and blames it on man's "fallen" nature and leaves crucifix-equipped Jesus to take the heat for it, making their share of his pain that much worse. And they keep doing it because of this "fallen" bullshit. That's mean.

    A moral being just plain doesn't do immoral things because these things are immoral and spares crucifix-equipped Jesus (metaphorical or otherwise) that share of pain.

    A moral human being would get Jesus the hell off that cross. I know I would, given the chance. *imagines sniping Romans* Christians are content to keep him there so he can keep bleeding and hurting for trivial garbage. Animals.

    When it all comes out in the wash, it's going to be the people who didn't need Jesus who actually took his advice to heart. Every bible thumper who came to my door was nuts. Serving "Jayzus" by pestering me with Hell talk because of their own guilt over something of varying severity.

    I'm not having it. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Satan is supposed to personify deception. The ultimate deception would be that of convincing idiots that they can do whatever they want and get away with it just by leaning on Jesus--only to spring the trap later on. That's a clever filter as I'm sure it would keep murderers who repent just before lethal injections, child molesters, RIAA attorneys and hypocrite televangelists like Swaggart out of Heaven, else, why would you want to be there?

    It's going to be the unconquered, the ones who didn't use Jesus as a human shield, who truly save your ass--assuming you're worth saving.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  24. Re:judeo-christianism will strike back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids.

    You mean if they weren't meddling with those kids?

  25. Re: They Will Be Sorry by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right. Because all countries in the world without state religions are moral cess pools.

    Are you seriously saying the only thing making you act morally is a demonstrably corrupt organization with a history of brutality?

  26. Re: They Will Be Sorry by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's some pretty weak propaganda. Did you know there are proportionally more Christians than atheists in prison? The church is evil. We have the law. We have social values. We don't need AIDS-promoting magical crooks to rule us anymore.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  27. Unsubscribe link != atheistic epiphany by Phat_Tony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Internet is secularizing the Finnish

    If the internet is secularizing the Finnish, it isn't through this website, except for by some bureaucratic technical definition. This website is allowing those who had already been secular to easily make an official declaration of such, but it's not like devoted god-fearing true believers are finding this site and saying "you know, this internet form makes a good point. I guess since it's easy to unsubscribe from the church now, I don't believe in God anymore."

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  28. Opting out of Islam by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is starting to be available for exiting Islam. There are bus ads for leaving Islam in New York. In countries that have freedom of religion but a big Islamic immigrant population, like the UK, France, and the Netherlands, this can work. The UK now has a Government Forced Marriage Unit, with services for people forced into marriage by their families. (Guidance of members of Parliament: "Mediation, reconciliation, and family counseling as a response to forced marriage can be extremely dangerous. There have been cases of victims being murdered while mediation was being undertaken.")

  29. Re:A Christian talking about irony? Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
  30. You're not paying attention to Jesus by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Matthew 5:17-19:

    Jesus said "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, wtill heaven and earth pass away, one 2jot or one 3tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. "

    In other words, you eat shellfish... you're screwed.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.