3 ms·

Your example of Sweden having an official religion is no longer current. The Church of Sweden is since 2000 no longer a state church. That said, it's been poss

by snaily 10y ago

Your example of Sweden having an official religion is no longer current. The Church of Sweden is since 2000 no longer a state church. That said, it's been possible to opt-out since 1868, and since 1996 membership is opt-in (upon baptizing) and not inherited based on the membership of the parents. Slightly less than two thirds of the population are still members, and it is losing members far faster than simple attrition would have it (about one percentage point per year). If you are a member of the Church of Sweden (or any other registered religion), the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief.

edblarney 10y ago
" the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief." I take it as neither. I take it that the 'Church' is a cultural epitaph, not even so much a religious one. It doesn't matter 'what one believes'. It matters a little bit that colocated people share some common faith, and the rituals, prayers, holidays, sense of spirit, goodwill - are synchronous in some way. When those are torn apart - and there is no 'common culture' - some of which is based on 'religion' - then there literally is no ethnicity, and arguably no nation. You mention 'Nordic efficiency'. It's true, Nordic countries are somewhat 'efficient'. But will Sweden be a 'Nordic' country when it's 20% ethnically Swedish, 10% German, 8% American, 5% Norwgian, 5% Somali, 5% Russian etc. etc.? What will make Sweden any different from Norway, which has almost the same ethnic composition, the same rules? The only difference between Norway and Sweden in 100 years might be the colour of your flags. English will be the dominant language, and ethnically, everyone will be 'from somewhere else'. Anyhow - thanks for your correction, but I don't think it changes the nature of my point. Multiculturalism has consequences, and it should be a choice, not something that is foisted upon people as a moral position.
- snaily 10y ago
  As you rightly point out, my reply was not meant as more than a factual rebuttal - which of course is valuable in and of itself if you want to make a coherent and sound argument. You also conveniently cut out the point that the state will collect membership taxes for the Church of Sweden, just as happily as it will for the local catholic branch or one of two registered islamic congregations. I'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do with mine.

by snaily 10y ago

edblarney 10y ago

" the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief." I take it as neither. I take it that the 'Church' is a cultural epitaph, not even so much a religious one. It doesn't matter 'what one believes'. It matters a little bit that colocated people share some common faith, and the rituals, prayers, holidays, sense of spirit, goodwill - are synchronous in some way. When those are torn apart - and there is no 'common culture' - some of which is based on 'religion' - then there literally is no ethnicity, and arguably no nation. You mention 'Nordic efficiency'. It's true, Nordic countries are somewhat 'efficient'. But will Sweden be a 'Nordic' country when it's 20% ethnically Swedish, 10% German, 8% American, 5% Norwgian, 5% Somali, 5% Russian etc. etc.? What will make Sweden any different from Norway, which has almost the same ethnic composition, the same rules? The only difference between Norway and Sweden in 100 years might be the colour of your flags. English will be the dominant language, and ethnically, everyone will be 'from somewhere else'. Anyhow - thanks for your correction, but I don't think it changes the nature of my point. Multiculturalism has consequences, and it should be a choice, not something that is foisted upon people as a moral position.

snaily 10y ago
As you rightly point out, my reply was not meant as more than a factual rebuttal - which of course is valuable in and of itself if you want to make a coherent and sound argument. You also conveniently cut out the point that the state will collect membership taxes for the Church of Sweden, just as happily as it will for the local catholic branch or one of two registered islamic congregations. I'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do with mine.