(March 11, 2016 at 3:33 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(March 11, 2016 at 3:08 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: The argument on our side was that Denmark is a secular society, despite the existence of an official state church as a relic of its theocratic past.
He's (as usual) bending facts to the shape of his prejudices.
Hanky, meet Huggy. Enjoy!
No, it was made pretty clear we were talking about the government of Denmark.
I think you can also make a case for the society not being all that secular when 84 percent of the population support the church with taxes.
http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledg...s-mediator
Quote:Although there is freedom of religion, there is no equality of religion, as the state sponsors only one church – the Evangelical Lutheran Church called Folkekirken, the “People’s Church.” It receives some twelve percent of its income from the state, but its largest source of income is the church taxes paid by its members. Most Danes – 84.7 % in 2001 – are members of the church, yet very few of them actively participate in it.
"...yet very few of them actively participate in it." You're doing it again!
For fuck's sake, I'll let the Danes tell you themselves:
Compared with most other countries in the world, Denmark’s societal institutions and popular mentality have been shaped by Christianity to an exceptional degree. It can be asserted that religion is more firmly entrenched in Danish society than in many other countries.
In practice, Christianity today comes to the fore, however, primarily during solemnisations surrounding birth and death. That is to say like the other Nordic countries, particularly Sweden, Denmark is also among the world’s most secularised countries, in which religion and Christianity play only a minor, often indirect, role in public life.
http://denmark.dk/en/society/religion/
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.