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.
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.
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.
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!!
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
And we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids.
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.
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.
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
The reason that real Christians live seperated lives is that it helps keep down the tendency to sin.
Posted from your bunker in Wako?
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
Homosexuality may be condemned in the Bible, but is the Bible correct?
"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
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?
>>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.
"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.
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).
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.