For Once I Want to be a Member!!
Me was disappointed today finding out I was not a member of the Norwegian church. Whot?!?Today I got really disappointed today when I found out that I wasn't a member of the Norwegian church but the Icelandic one. This doesn't really sound like me, does it? It is true though! I have been meaning to resign for some time now, but I couldn't find which church I belonged to and started procrastinating. After being irritated for few days now over a recent case of discrimination against a gay priest I really wanted to make a statement and resign! Then the damn lady tells me I am not a member, what a disappointment!
Svein Josefsen a priest who had just come back from a 6 year sick leave dealing with two difficult heart surgeries was "kindly" informed by the Oslo bishop Ole Christian Kvarm, that he wasn't welcome back because he had entered a gay partnership during his sick leave. Scandinavians pride themselves that they have come so far but it seems that ignorance is still firmly rooted in us. For some reason this isn't causing quite the uproar you would expect. We women complain that we don't have equality but ig this had happened to one of us it would have gotten more sympathy.
So as a consolation I filled out the Icelandic form and laughed over the irony that if you don't belong to a religion in Iceland the money paid by the state gets donated to the university. So in few days I will no longer be sponsoring ignorance but rather elimination of ignorance.
Sticking to one's guns
A church, like a university, is founded on some basic assumptions. In the case of the University it some notion that ideas which don't clearly predict the things we see in our everyday lives are not as good as ideas that do, along with a common commitment to "Ockham's Razor" - the principle that the simplest idea which explains everything known is the best one.
Christian churches generally place some store in what the bible says. Which makes life tricky, because the bible says a lot of things, showing major signs of having monotheism grafted onto it at a stage somewhat later than some of the things it describes as happening. But the bible says, in quite a lot of places, that being gay is bad. The difference between the old testament and the new testament is that the latter doesn't promote the idea of stoning people to death or similar for transgressing some religious rule or other. But arguing for gay rights in a christian church strikes me as being uncomfortably close to arguing for creationism in a rational biology department.
Leaving the church because they are going against their fundamental principles is one thing - when Luther did it he managed to spark centuries of warfare and bloodshed, based on a serious analysis of the principles at stake. But leaving a church because they aren't prepared to adapt to an atheistic idea of what they should consider acceptable strikes me as a bit of a waste of time really. Although it has the positive side effect that it is unlikely to lead to quite so many deaths.
Equality atheistic?
I have left the church because of few things. First of all, I don't believe there is a God. Second, the Bible advocates things that I don't want to be associated with. Too many religious people are holding onto views in the Bible that are not appropriate in an educated society. By staying a part of it just because I have been too lazy to sign out would be wrong as then I am indirectly supporting them.
Btw. I don't think that issues involving discrimination of women and gay people count as particularly atheistic so saying that they have to adapt to atheistic idea of what they should consider is a bit off.
An important thing that the University does is updating its textbooks when they become outdated. I think the Christianity would be better off if they would update their Bible or at least deem some of its sections obsolete. I am generally against changing books as they serve as a historical reference so I would vote for the latter.
Til hamingju með afmælið! Tillykke med födselsdagen!
Hún á afmælí dag, hún á afmæli í dag, hún á afmæli hún Gerður, hún á afmæli í dag... Hún lengi lifi húrra húrra húrra! Vonandi gerirðu þér dagamun í tilefni dagsins, kveðja frá danmörku.
Celibacy is the answer
Let's see.. Iceland is not geographically part of Scandinavia, so you're not a Scandinavian by birth? Just a Nordic citizen? Otherwise you would've written "ourselves" instead of "themselves".
Although it is very old-fashioned, part of me likes the idea that a priest should live in absolute celibacy. No wife, no kids, just him (or her) and God. Perhaps it is cruel, but it would be a decision one makes if you're so committed to your religion that you want to preach it. Many business leaders choose to not get a family, but instead put 110% into their company. They can serve as good (?) examples. If all the church leaders were asexual (whoa!), there would not be any such scandals. I know it won't happen, in particular not in certain independent churches/sects in the USA where it is legio for the master clergyman to have orgies with a majority of the women in the parish.
And yes, those statements are written from the perspective of a so far happy single.
What makes a scandal?
If celibacy weren't considered such a big deal, maybe the scandal wouldn't matter. If monogamy weren't considered such a big deal, then the issue would come down to one of simple honesty, owning up to who you are and what you do, rather than hiding it to protect layer upon layer of moralistic structure.
Sure, some people obviously think monogamy is important to them. Equally obviously, a lot of people don't, or are at least tempted to try out the alternatives.
It doesn't always work for people. It might not work for some churches because it is specifically against their ground rules. But celibacy isn't something that everyone seems naturally inclined towards. (In particular, it seems that a lot of leaders are fairly solidly inclined not to be celibate - the numbers suggest that there might be some correlation with the ability to lead people in general, and the ability to lead people on in particular).
And the example of business people putting their entire lives into creating something designed to make them rich is one that makes me cry. That people would build something they care about is wonderful, but that it would be something as crude as a way of concentrating more people's money in fewer people's hands is a tragedy.
IMHO
Interesting
Interesting correlation you made there. I wonder if they have done any studies on that.
I generally believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with their life as long as it doesn't cause other people harm. If they want to be celebate fine. If they want to spend their life on trying to become rich, fine! It is much better that way than we telling them they cannot work hard to get rich or that they have to celebate.
Not sure...
I sometimes tend to confuse the term Nordic and Scandinavian and not always use them correctly. I almost consider my a member of both those groups now so I don't always use them correctly. I didn't write ourselves as I don't consider myself a part of the group that discrimates against gay people:-).
While idealistically priest should live in celibacy it has proven to be almost impossible for them in the past. They are simply human like the rest of us and end up have secret wives or something along those lines. If something isn't working out in reality maybe that means that it isn't the right thing... I don't know and I don't really have strong opinions either. As long as nobody gets forced into something against their own will, and it doesn't hurt other people I think they should be free to do whatever they want:)
Scandinavians
You say that "Scandinavians pride themselves that they have come so far but it seems that ignorance is still firmly rooted in us."
Interesting that you bring up the issue of "Scandinavians" when it is only talk about a certain Church? Ok, CHurch of Norway is a big, dominating church in Norway - a big "anti-multi-culti" weapon. But this Church does not equal "the Scandinavians". This church is neither proof of this - of of that.
But it is very scandinavian to think that it is. The Church = the people. That is your thinking, apparently.
Neither is it so that "Scandinavians" all want to depict themselves as "gay liberals". I for one, do not.
The supporters of this gay priest are almoust unanomously supporters of continued strong "state church". In reality, the "liberal" part of the Norwegian Church has always been a minority, and have only been able to gain ground by help of the state.
The state is the beste guarantee for the kind of Church they want. Much simimlar to the (now former) leader of Nowegian Labour Union LO, who declared she wanted a state church.
I am very curious about how this all fits into your Høyre politics.
Only a paper member
Yes, I am maybe generalizing way too much here by discussing Scandinavians as a whole. I guess in this case I should have said Norwegians. I however think that you can say "The Church = The People as long as there is a state church. If something is a part of the state it should be a leading example and not discriminate people based on sex, skin color, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc. How would it look if other state run institutions started doing this. No you can't put your kid in school here because you are gay... Ridiculous isn't it!
If I am not mistaken Høyre wants a seperation between state and church. I am no expert here because I still am nothing more than a paper member of Høyre and hence I don't really know if it is really the "right" thing for me. It seems to be on the same line with my political beliefs but if there are cases where I don't agree I refuse to blindly follow them. That would just be yet another religion. I can however always try to make good arguments against it and convince people that they are wrong. Ultimately, if it was something I totally disagreed with, I would resign.
outdated
I'm not a Norwegian citizen at all, not even Scandinavian. But to me it seems quite obvious that a 'state church' like you seem to have is an illiberal ouddated institution that has no place in a modern democracy. A bit like Norway being a monarchy, but then with actual serious negative side-effects.
Very outdated but some good people too!
The monarchy here doesn't really have any negative effects except being a money drain and a bit embarrassing:). They create quite a lot of jobs though... don't think the gossip magazines would be quite as big as they are without them.
The state church is outdated and much more outdated then I thought it was. I remember growing up in a society where there was a church and you were supposed to believe and be a good person. I can never remember it being discriminating or evil. It was very relaxed and didn't pose to many restrictions on you. I am sure there were some cases but it seems more backward here.
There was positive development in this case today. Many of the priests went out and said that they had to be fired too since they supported the gay priest. It was very good to hear that there are good people there too.
The right reaons.
So you wanted to be a member so you could go out of the church in protest? How noble would that be?
Thank God (literaly) that you were not a member then.
This is not the right reason for being member of a church you see.
What is more noble? Supporting discrimination or not?
I know it is not the right reason to be a member of the church :) . That was not the point, I knew I was already a member somewhere and wanted to be a member nowhere.
I don't think it would be unnoble to resign if I was actually a member in the Norwegian church. It is very unnoble to support discrimination which is what you are in theory doing if you don't either resign or make it known that you disagree with this case. Note that I say in theory, it is of course not that black and white but I feel this case is important enough to make a statement.