Swedish Churches 'Obsolete' Blow 'Em Up Say Half of Country

Yanky free thinkers, eat your heart out.

Swedish churches open SPA salons and Chinese medicine centers
Anatoly Miranovsky
28.10.2011

Sweden will get rid of its churches. There are not enough funds to maintain numerous church buildings as the country, according to opinion polls, has over 80 percent of the people who classified themselves as atheists. The methods for enticing people into churches would not be approved by the founders of the Protestant denominations. Places of worship now have SPA-salons and centers of Chinese medicine.


Professor of Ethics Swedish, pastor Hans Hammar Berryer, sent an open letter to the nation, in which he proposed to blow up churches or find a different application for them: turn them into cafes, pizzerias, houses, or industrial facilities.
In Sweden there are 3,384 church buildings. At best, five hundred of them are used for religious services once a month. Sweden is the least religious country in Europe.




The funding of confessions in many European countries is now obtained through the so-called church tax or its components. The payments are voluntary. This form of financing of religious infrastructure is used in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, Spain and Italy.


The tax is paid in favor of a religious community. Refusal to pay means leaving the church, which takes away from a former community member a place at a church cemetery and some other temple services. Incidentally, it is not always possible to get a church tax on hand in the form of money. In some places this part of income on tax payer's request can be redirected to other purposes - charity or scientific development.

After the separation of church from the state in 2000, the right not to pay the clerics was granted to the Swedish Lutherans. Apparently, expecting a mass fleeing of the nourished herds from their pastors, the Swedish government decided to allocate 50 million euros annually for the maintenance of temple buildings through the support of the objects of cultural and historical significance.


"I have studied statistics, and it terrified me," Hans Hammar Berryer was quoted by Novye Izvestia. "Since 2000, over half a million people fled from the church (the population of Sweden is 10 million).The situation is even worse with the younger generation. The Rite of Confirmation in the 1970s was held annually by 80,000 children. Today the number has decreased to 35 thousand. There are increasingly fewer parishioners, respectively, our revenues are falling. We just do not have enough to maintain 3,384 churches existing in the country. There are only three ways out: blow the churches up, fill them with people or turn them into pizzerias and production departments. "




The Bolshevik idea to blow up churches does not scare many Swedes. According to the online survey of the Swedish newspaper "Svenska Dagbladet", 46 percent of Swedes are in favor of the demolition of churches, 54 per cent are against it. Over 80 percent of Swedes consider themselves non-believers, that is, they are not paying to those carrying "the word of God."
Abandoned Protestant churches are being looted. Thieves do not only steal what is stored inside, but even take the copper from church roofs. This year 42 such instances have been recorded.

The liberal wing of the Lutheran Church parishioners is luring people with a complex of secular services. Now, the priests offer not taming, but rather gratification of the flesh. The churches offer massages, water treatment and purifying beverages.
Employees of the cult attract therapists and other specialists to their business projects. In particular, clients lying on a sofa under a warm blanket in modern Swedish Lutheran church can complain about their lives not only to the pastor but also a psychotherapist.
Another trend is Asian bodily practices and sale of proprietary Chinese qi energy by qualified instructors. More conservative parishes offer local developments in the form of various diets and exercise.

Thus, Protestantism that arose out of the Reformation of the Catholic Church is becoming the object of another Reformation. In 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 theses against the orders of the Catholic Church on a church door at Wittenberg which, according to official history, marked the beginning of the Reformation.

In 2007, a Protestant Congress was held in Wittenberg that declared the policy of modernization that has already passed the "point of no return." The representatives of Germany stated that the number of believers in the Protestant churches in 2030 could fall from the current 25.6 million to 17 million people. At the same time the annual income of the religious communities will be reduced from EUR 4 billion to 2 billion.

However, these numbers only take into account the income from church tax paid by parishioners. As for the total profits of the evangelical churches of Germany (unification EKD), it is approximately 10 billion euros per year.
It is worth noting that the desire to bring the church to "universal values" often has the opposite effect. Thus, recognition of "normality" of sodomy by the Anglican Church and the introduction of female bishops has led to a massive exodus of parishioners and priests who do not want to deal with those degraded. Earlier this year, members of 20 former Anglican parishes and three former Anglican bishops have left for the Catholic Church.
 Pravda Ru

Read More

It's 2011 -- Why Is God Still Involved In American Politics? Speaking For God

I should have had this post out earlier in the week, but I have been in recovery. Not from too much grog, or even bad drugs, no something far more brain damaging than either of those. Mormonism! I've been reading about Mormonism, the tenets of Mormonism to be exact.

No linky for you just yet, because there is, once I've made myself a tin-foil hat, hopefully a post in the making. And if I can do justice to the thing, it should be of such incredulity, that you yourselves might have to retire to the bed chamber, quite possibly, with more than just a touch of the vapours. Of that though, another day.

Just a couple of paragraphs to get the feel, and then on to the article proper.

Things that used to be considered beyond the pale in politics, such as religious intolerance or ministers blatantly claiming they know who God supports in an election, have become normalized to the point where someone like Mitt Romney, who is odious in most respects but has never really made much of a fuss over his faith, is seeing religious tests becoming a major issue in his campaign.

Yes, just like the revival tent, going beyond the pale is just but a memory. But not so for those that speak for God; modern day Elmer Gantries! we got 'em coming out the woodwork. Ain't we Glenn? ain't we Pat?

Glenn Beck, Unhinged in Texas A read in its own right.

But it's this bit that's the cracker. Believe in the most outlandish batshit crazy stuff that you could possibly dream up and you are qualified to run for office. Believe in reality, and you haven't a snowball in hell's chance of being elected. Or if by some miracle (In the name of Noodles, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful) that you do manage to slip through the net, then beware, for "The Christians immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him." (Not)

I think ministering angels are a bit thin on the ground in North Carolina, not unlike Christians I shouldn't wonder.

Atheists already face discrimination when it comes to running for public office. A number of states ban atheists from holding public office, even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office. Of course, it’s difficult for an atheist to win enough votes to get office, so this conflict hasn’t been tested much, although one atheist city council member found himself under fire by religious bigots who wanted to use North Carolina’s ban on atheists holding office to push him out for not swearing his oath of office on the Bible.

I have embedded the short Rachel Maddow clip leading from the A number of states ban link. Perhaps it might be as well watching it first; whatever?

It's 2011 -- Why Is the Christian God Still Involved In American Politics?

The Mormon-bashing directed at Mitt Romney should concern everyone for what it reveals about the undue influence of religion in American elections.
By Amanda Marcotte
October 12, 2011

As an atheist and a liberal, it’s been tempting for me to simply laugh at Republicans fighting each other over the issue of whether or not Mitt Romney, a Mormon, gets to consider himself a Christian. From the non-believer point of view, it’s like watching a bunch of grown adults work themselves into a frenzy over the differences between leprechauns and fairies. But watching the debate unfold, I’ve become concerned about what it means to make someone’s religious beliefs such a big campaign issue, because it’s indicative of a larger eroding of the separation of church and state, which concerns not just atheists but all people who understand the importance of maintaining a secular government.

Robert Jeffress, an influential pastor who is the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, went on "Focal Point" with Bryan Fischer and declared that one shouldn’t support Mitt Romney for president because Romney, a Mormon, isn’t a real Christian. This created a media dustup that was silly even by the usual standards of ever-sillier mainstream media campaign coverage. John King of CNN interviewed Jeffress, focusing strictly on the question of who Jeffress believes deserves to be called a Christian, and how firmly he believes that only people he calls Christians should hold public office. Candy Crowley of CNN dogged both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann on the question of whether or not they believe Romney is a Christian, and then she got irate with the candidates when they refused to answer the question, claiming that it’s irrelevant.

These interviews are remarkable for what the CNN anchors didn’t discuss, which was the most important question of all: the separation of church and state. Even though our nation has a tradition of pastors staying out of partisan politics -- in fact, it is illegal for ministers to endorse candidates from the pulpit -- it seemingly never occurred to King to challenge Jeffress for overstepping his bounds by telling people that God wants an evangelical Christian who is a Republican for president. By making the story about whether or not Mormons are Christians, CNN left the viewer with the impression that only Christians deserve to hold public office, and that the only thing left to debate is whether or not someone “counts” as a Christian, making him or her eligible for office.

We’re a long way from the days when John Kennedy assured the public that he respected the separation of church and state and would keep his faith separate from his policy-making decisions. Now, even mainstream reporters take it as a given that politicians will let religion govern their actions, and the only thing left to debate on theology is how many angels any single politician believes dance on the head of a pin. Things that used to be considered beyond the pale in politics, such as religious intolerance or ministers blatantly claiming they know who God supports in an election, have become normalized to the point where someone like Mitt Romney, who is odious in most respects but has never really made much of a fuss over his faith, is seeing religious tests becoming a major issue in his campaign.

The ramifications for this shift affect more than conservative Mormons trying to win as Republicans. By not challenging the assertion that only Christians should hold office, mainstream journalists encourage bigotry against all religious minorities, including atheists. Atheists already face discrimination when it comes to running for public office. A number of states ban atheists from holding public office, even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office. Of course, it’s difficult for an atheist to win enough votes to get office, so this conflict hasn’t been tested much, although one atheist city council member found himself under fire by religious bigots who wanted to use North Carolina’s ban on atheists holding office to push him out for not swearing his oath of office on the Bible.

There’s a reason the Founding Fathers wrote a national constitution that forbade religious tests for office and required the separation of church and state. It’s not just protection against the escalating religious bigotry we're seeing lately, but also because religion should have no place in politics in the first place. Neither atheists nor believers benefit when leaders are guided more by religious dogma than by rationality. Angels and demons might be a fine thing to worry about when you’re in church on Sunday, but when you’re trying to govern real people in the real world, it’s far better to rely on evidence and empirical facts, interpreted through reason and not through the guesswork of faith. This is why Kennedy defended himself against questions about his faith by saying, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”

People like Robert Jeffress, when they propose religious tests for office--even ones held privately by voters--should face more challenges than reporters simply asking if they consider Mormons “real” Christians. They should be confronted with Kennedy’s words and asked directly why they disagree with our former president about the separation of church and state. They should be asked why they believe only a certain breed of Christians should hold office, and asked why they think it’s appropriate to demand that politicians put religious dogma before evidence-based and rational approaches to policy. Anything less than that is aiding the religious right in its mission to remake our secular democracy into a theocracy. It shouldn’t be tolerated. AlterNet

Read More

Jesoids Ban Richard Dawkins Event in Michigan Country Club

There is a link to the O'Reilly video in question at the bottom of the page. Personally I couldn't get past the one minute mark. The overwhelming desire to kick someone in the bollocks, having the tendency to interfere with one's viewing pleasure ever so slightly.

Billo is such an ignorant loud mouthed gobshite, or as some disillusion soul described him a while back: 'A great American.' And I'm not making that up, as hard as it might be to get your head around.

Bill O'Reilly, corporate shill and a great American.

Previous: Billo You're So Predictable

Richard Dawkins Event Banned by Michigan Country Club
October 10, 2011

The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

Prejudice against atheists (video here & here) manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by the Center for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

Richard DawkinsThe Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.




In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

After learning of the owner’s last-minute refusal to allow Dawkins to speak, CFI–Michigan asked the owner to reconsider his position, but this attempt to resolve the issue amicably was met with silence. The event, scheduled for Wednesday, October 12, will now be held at a different venue.

“It’s important to understand that discrimination based on a person’s religion—or lack thereof—is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race,” said Jeff Seaver, executive director of CFI–Michigan. “This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time. It’s exactly why organizations like CFI and the Richard Dawkins Foundation are needed: to help end the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever.” CFI-Michigan: via RDF - Video link

Read More

Teddies 4 Blasphemy Day

He's a bit late getting his freak on is Teddy, but I suppose there are a few more hours of the day left in Jesus Land. Drive on Teddy!

Read More