NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=554&a=479920&previousRenderType=6

The highest deciding organ for the Swedish Church (which used to be state church before the separation of church and state), the democratically elected Kyrkomötet, overwhelmingly (160 votes to 81, 8 abstentions) voted yes to a proposition which lets it bless homosexual couples that enter into a civil marriage ("partnerskap" which grants gay couples all the rights a marriage grants straight couples).

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=479686&previousRenderType=6

The Swedish government is about to introduce a law that will correct what had been called a "system error" by HomO, the government appointed Ombudsman on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation. The law will change Sweden's marriage laws so that those who have been authorised to perform weddings can no longer refuse to perform civil marriages of gay couples. Previously the two tasks were kept separate, and one needed to apply for both "positions" to be able to perform them, but come January 2006 they will be made one. Those who refuse to wed gay couples will be stripped of their right to wed straight ones as well. This only applies to civil marriages - clergy men able to wed couples are not affected, as the law so far only permits civil marriages for gay couples.

But even that is about to change. The government is expected to propose a new law changing the Swedish Äktenskapsbalken to make it gender neutral, rendering all marriages in Sweden gender neutral. It is expected to rescind the traditional ability of the Church of Sweden (and other denominations/religions who have applied for and been granted it) to legally wed couples, leaving them with only the ceremonial part of the wedding.

All these three things combined, blessings from the church should one wish to have one + instance of discrimination eliminated + end to a no longer necessary distinction between marriages, the future is looking bright for gay couples in this country - straight couples, too, actually. I may shun nationalism like the plague, but sometimes even I manage to find it in me to be proud of our little Realm, and have a usually disturbing but now joyous sense of happiness to live where I live. It makes me so glad to see that things here are going forward through our steady reform process instead of stagnating or going backwards like in some other places. I'm hoping the feeling will pass soon and give way to my usual cynicism. :)

Thoughts?

Thoughts?
And?
That's what the church is supposed to do, right? Bless people who love each other so that they can hopefully live happy and fulfilled lives.

Thoughts?
*Sweden overtakes Finland as Safalra's favourite Scandinavian country*

That's great! Then I can be married! :D

And?
That's what the church is supposed to do, right? Bless people who love each other so that they can hopefully live happy and fulfilled lives.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, there are many who don't share that sentiment. They suffered a defeat in this country today! :)

Then i say there not christian they have let modern thinking contaminate there church.

Thoughts?
Yup, heard about that. That's good for everyone, and at least the Swedes seem to be supporting it. I would say more, but I don't understand everything in the news, and blah blah.

Never happen in US. Recent vote on same sex marriage was struck down in 11 or so States.

Hooray! Go us! *Waves little flag*

Almost makes me feel bad about leaving the Church...

Sweden proves itself a more reasonable and friendly place to live than the US. Yet again.

I wish my country was more like Sweden.

Sweden proves itself a more reasonable and friendly place to live than the US. Yet again.

I wish my country was more like Sweden.
Then move to Sweden.... Come on be impulsive:p

Then i say there not christian they have let modern thinking contaminate there church.

Aww, not even lexically challenged types who think "modern thinking" is a bad thing can get me down today! :)

Then move to Sweden.... Come on be impulsive:p

That would require getting off my lazy ass and learning Swedish. And getting enough money to get a place there. Plus, I like the SF bay area.

Then i say there not christian they have let modern thinking contaminate there church.
I've heard the Swedes even gave up burning witches and performing exorcisms to treat mental disorders. Can you imagine?!

That would require getting off my lazy ass and learning Swedish. And getting enough money to get a place there. Plus, I like the SF bay area.
Learning Swedish is irrelevant. Money? Rob a bank!! If you fail you can spend time in prison learning Swedish.:D

Good news.

Chalk another one up for equal rights.

Yay Sweden!

:D :D :D :D

The Swedish government is about to introduce a law that will correct what had been called a "system error" by HomO, the government appointed Ombudsman on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation.

Thoughts?

Yeah. Your government called the Ombudsman on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation "HomO"? Or is that his office? Or is that... a media-granted nickname?

However, good news for civil rights. I wonder what Fred Phelps thinks of this, after the Ake Green business. He probably thinks Sweden is about to fall off the northern edge of the world and straight into Hell.

I wonder what the "church" will think when they open their Bibles and discover Sodom.

I wonder what the "church" will think when they open their Bibles and discover Sodom.
I wonder what the "Christians" will think when they open their Bibles and discover Jesus.

Yeah. Your government called the Ombudsman on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation "HomO"? Or is that his office? Or is that... a media-granted nickname?

http://www.homo.se/o.o.i.s?id=1210

That's what the office is called. Currently held by Hans Ytterberg. The tradition in naming ombudsmen's offices is that they get a big "O" at the end of their name, to signify that they are ombudsmen, hence the "HomO."

However, good news for civil rights. I wonder what Fred Phelps thinks of this, after the Ake Green business. He probably thinks Sweden is about to fall off the northern edge of the world and straight into Hell.

He's yesterday's news here. Everyone, even Åke Green, got together, called him a loon, denounced him as an irrelevant American, and that was that.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=554&a=479920&previousRenderType=6

The highest deciding organ for the Swedish Church (which used to be state church before the separation of church and state), the democratically elected Kyrkomötet, overwhelmingly (160 votes to 81, 8 abstentions) voted yes to a proposition which lets it bless homosexual couples that enter into a civil marriage ("partnerskap" which grants gay couples all the rights a marriage grants straight couples).

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=479686&previousRenderType=6

The Swedish government is about to introduce a law that will correct what had been called a "system error" by HomO, the government appointed Ombudsman on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation. The law will change Sweden's marriage laws so that those who have been authorised to perform weddings can no longer refuse to perform civil marriages of gay couples. Previously the two tasks were kept separate, and one needed to apply for both "positions" to be able to perform them, but come January 2006 they will be made one. Those who refuse to wed gay couples will be stripped of their right to wed straight ones as well. This only applies to civil marriages - clergy men able to wed couples are not affected, as the law so far only permits civil marriages for gay couples.

But even that is about to change. The government is expected to propose a new law changing the Swedish Äktenskapsbalken to make it gender neutral, rendering all marriages in Sweden gender neutral. It is expected to rescind the traditional ability of the Church of Sweden (and other denominations/religions who have applied for and been granted it) to legally wed couples, leaving them with only the ceremonial part of the wedding.

All these three things combined, blessings from the church should one wish to have one + instance of discrimination eliminated + end to a no longer necessary distinction between marriages, the future is looking bright for gay couples in this country - straight couples, too, actually. I may shun nationalism like the plague, but sometimes even I manage to find it in me to be proud of our little Realm, and have a usually disturbing but now joyous sense of happiness to live where I live. It makes me so glad to see that things here are going forward through our steady reform process instead of stagnating or going backwards like in some other places. I'm hoping the feeling will pass soon and give way to my usual cynicism. :)

Thoughts?


IOW: Swedent is repealing "seperation of Church and State"...

As soon as the state begins dictating policies of belief upon the churches... It can no longer claim it is following a principle of seperation.

I wonder what the "church" will think when they open their Bibles and discover Sodom.

That the sin of Sodom has always been inhospitality. And since this is an act of hospitality on their part, Sodom's lesson may be seen as learnt.

IOW: Swedent is repealing "seperation of Church and State"...

As soon as the state begins dictating policies of belief upon the churches... It can no longer claim it is following a principle of seperation.

What? How do you construe that? This is the Church itself - as I distinctly wrote, it's highest deciding organ - that decided this. The government had no business in this, and it couldn't affect the church in this way even if it had wanted to. Did you even read what I wrote? Where did you get the idea that the government dictated to them what to believe?

Also, please "-snip-" long quotes in the future. There is no need to quote the entirety of my post. It's poor netiquette.

I wonder what the "church" will think when they open their Bibles and discover Sodom.

"Wow! We found it! And all those archaeologists disagree about whether they were real! And they weren't along the Jordan Rift Valley, they were in Sweden!"

He's yesterday's news here. Everyone, even Åke Green, got together, called him a loon, denounced him as an irrelevant American, and that was that.

I realise. I just can't wait to see him froth on his website :D

I realise. I just can't wait to see him froth on his website :D

Actually, it would be quite funny to see it happen on TV. A bunch of representatives and this guy get on TV, and they all, in unison, tell him:

"You are an irrelevant American"

Watch as the security guards haul him away in a strait jacket :p

Eh, I couldn't actually care that much if the State allows it or not… but the Church? Say what? That's… rather odd.

And once again sweden shows itself to be the civil rights love fest not even max barry could have designed :p

One mark up for sweden

If so many of you are atheists, why do you need a church? Or a religious ceremony?

Seems to me filling out a civil marriage license would be enough for you.

If so many of you are atheists, why do you need a church? Or a religious ceremony?

Tradition. A millennium+ of tradition is not erased that easily and many people still dream of the grand church wedding without necessarily thinking about the religious aspect at all. Just like close to 75-80% of people are still members of the Church of Sweden, even if most rarely, if ever, attend services (except funerals and weddings and baptisms, which paradoxically most people still have performed despite secularity) and most describe themselves as not religious. We are a very secular society today, but we have deeply rooted traditions for which a century of secularism is insufficient to wipe away completely. The church also offers counselling and support in times of disaster, so many people rely on this "cosy" aspect of their mission, seeing the church as less of a religious institution, and more as an additional layer to the social safety net.

It is contradictory, yes, but what society is devoid of contradiction?

Seems to me filling out a civil marriage license would be enough for you.

For me it is. For others it isn't. I can live with everyone having the option to have the church ceremony if they so wish.

Wonder how that prick Phelps will react to this? I wish I could see the look on the bastard's face! :D

Take that, reactionaries!

Well done, Sweden! This is highly encouraging.

ay, sweden..give me five, well rather 6 more years and there i come..*sighs*

ye. way to go. i'm already glad our parliament passed the disputed legislation to alow for civil unions. i don't think we'll get the church to move off of their position any time soon. eh.

If so many of you are atheists, why do you need a church? Or a religious ceremony?

Seems to me filling out a civil marriage license would be enough for you.


From what I have found in my research is that marriage was first a civil institution before being claimed by religion.

From what I have found in my research is that marriage was first a civil institution before being claimed by religion.

My point is, why have a "church" bless it if you're an atheist. Sure, have a civil ceremony - but why "bless" if you literally do not believe in such things?

It's like celebrating Christmas if you're an atheist. Put up the tree. Sing religious carols door to door. Exchange presents. Wish people a Merry Christmas. Maybe even go to the local church for the big carol singalong.

I've seen too many atheists do this, and I want to understand the dialectic.

To an atheists, technically, all religious ceremonies should have equally worthless value. Why aren't droves of atheists emulating the people who are celebrating Ramadan?

My point is, why have a "church" bless it if you're an atheist. Sure, have a civil ceremony - but why "bless" if you literally do not believe in such things?
You mistakenly make the assumption that all homosexuals are atheist.

Some might actually be Christian (gosh, the horror, a gay Christian? Never!), and might want to be married in a church.

You mistakenly make the assumption that all homosexuals are atheist.
I'm not saying all are. But certainly a number of them on this forum, and certainly some I've met in real life.

In fact, homosexuality aside, I've met too many atheists who insisted on having "church weddings".

What? How do you construe that? This is the Church itself - as I distinctly wrote, it's highest deciding organ - that decided this. The government had no business in this, and it couldn't affect the church in this way even if it had wanted to. Did you even read what I wrote? Where did you get the idea that the government dictated to them what to believe?

Also, please "-snip-" long quotes in the future. There is no need to quote the entirety of my post. It's poor netiquette.

Those who refuse to wed gay couples will be stripped of their right to wed straight ones as well.

That dictates, by the power of withholding of privileges, the power and right of individuals and individual churches, mosques and synagogues, to determine their own beliefs, free of outside interference by the government’s mandate of acceptable theology.

Thus, the end of the separation between Church and State. Only government theology will be granted the right to perform legal marriages. The exact same thing the Canadians said would NOT happen there… It looks as though the slippery slope is more real than some would let on.

Those who refuse to wed gay couples will be stripped of their right to wed straight ones as well.

That dictates, by the power of withholding of privileges, the power and right of individuals and individual churches, mosques and synagogues, to determine their own beliefs, free of outside interference by the government’s mandate of acceptable theology.

Thus, the end of the separation between Church and State. Only government theology will be granted the right to perform legal marriages. The exact same thing the Canadians said would NOT happen there… It looks as though the slippery slope is more real than some would let on.
read the NEXT SENTENCE DOWN on the original post.

the church may on its own accord decide to mandate gay weddings. the state is not involved in that part.

Those who refuse to wed gay couples will be stripped of their right to wed straight ones as well.

That dictates, by the power of withholding of privileges, the power and right of individuals and individual churches, mosques and synagogues, to determine their own beliefs, free of outside interference by the government’s mandate of acceptable theology.

Thus, the end of the separation between Church and State. Only government theology will be granted the right to perform legal marriages. The exact same thing the Canadians said would NOT happen there… It looks as though the slippery slope is more real than some would let on.

It is the Swedish Church's council/synod/assembly that decided to make the move!! The government didn't decide for them, they decided on their own!!

The government is seperately ensuring equality amongst the civil servants who perform civil weddings (i.e. outside the Swedish Church). Now, their role includes both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships/weddings.

I am glad that the Church decided to make this move, as someone who actually bothers to vote in Swedish Church elections.

Those who refuse to wed gay couples will be stripped of their right to wed straight ones as well.
That dictates, by the power of withholding of privileges, the power and right of individuals and individual churches, mosques and synagogues, to determine their own beliefs, free of outside interference by the government’s mandate of acceptable theology.
Thus, the end of the separation between Church and State. Only government theology will be granted the right to perform legal marriages. The exact same thing the Canadians said would NOT happen there… It looks as though the slippery slope is more real than some would let on.

You should have read the whole post. You should have at least read the next sentence. Go ahead, I'll wait. It shoots you down, basically.

You should have read the whole post. You should have at least read the next sentence. Go ahead, I'll wait. It shoots you down, basically.


Oh, you must mean this part:
But even that is about to change. The government is expected to propose a new law changing the Swedish Äktenskapsbalken to make it gender neutral, rendering all marriages in Sweden gender neutral. It is expected to rescind the traditional ability of the Church of Sweden (and other denominations/religions who have applied for and been granted it) to legally wed couples, leaving them with only the ceremonial part of the wedding.

Like I said before, withholding of privileges, they desire to and are, withdrawing the non-Church of Sweden group's rights to perform legal marriages at all, thus, eliminating their ability to form their own faith without interference from the government. An end around to the problem of trying to make them comply, take it away from all of them. :rolleyes:

Oh, you must mean this part:
But even that is about to change. The government is expected to propose a new law changing the Swedish Äktenskapsbalken to make it gender neutral, rendering all marriages in Sweden gender neutral. It is expected to rescind the traditional ability of the Church of Sweden (and other denominations/religions who have applied for and been granted it) to legally wed couples, leaving them with only the ceremonial part of the wedding.

Like I said before, [i]withholding of privileges, they desire to and are, withdrawing the non-Church of Sweden group's rights to perform legal marriages at all, thus, eliminating their ability to form their own faith without interference from the government. An end around to the problem of trying to make them comply, take it away from all of them. :rolleyes:
Earlier you complained that the Swedish government was de facto removing the seperation of church and state. Now, you seem to argue for the state and church being linked - I am confused.

This legislation would simply solidify our seperation of the church and the state by making the official part of a marriage an entirely secular matter.

My point is, why have a "church" bless it if you're an atheist. Sure, have a civil ceremony - but why "bless" if you literally do not believe in such things?

It's like celebrating Christmas if you're an atheist. Put up the tree. Sing religious carols door to door. Exchange presents. Wish people a Merry Christmas. Maybe even go to the local church for the big carol singalong.

I've seen too many atheists do this, and I want to understand the dialectic.

To an atheists, technically, all religious ceremonies should have equally worthless value. Why aren't droves of atheists emulating the people who are celebrating Ramadan?
For many, it is a case of tradition and/or socializing.

I participate in religious holidays with friends and extended family members for the same reason I participate in secular holidays like Thanksgiving: because it's a chance to get all warm and fuzzy with the people I care about. I like putting up colorful decorations, eating too much food, singing, and spending time with loved ones, and I don't need to believe in God for any of those things. I can appreciate the joy and community of a holiday regardless of whether or not I believe in a particular God.

Also, many atheists and agnostics come from backgrounds that were religious, so things like Christmas or a church wedding are more about family tradition than they are about religious belief. They also may participate in religious rituals to please family members who are more religious, because some atheists don't much care either way...they figure, for instance, that there's no harm in getting married in Aunt Mable's church, and it will make Aunt Mable so very happy, so why not?

Thats some great news.

Like I said before, withholding of privileges, they desire to and are, withdrawing the non-Church of Sweden group's rights to perform legal marriages at all, thus, eliminating their ability to form their own faith without interference from the government. An end around to the problem of trying to make them comply, take it away from all of them. :rolleyes:

The legal wedding right is not something the church should have at all in a system where the church is separate from the government - the government does the legal stuff. So, what the hell are you bitching about? Are you just bitter because something nice happened to gay people? Is that why you call it a "non-Church"? It really is transparent how your own bias and homophobia is affecting you here and you're just trying to shit on this and you're happy to do it as poorly and ineptly as you have just for the sake of doing it, because it happened to people you hate. Sad, really, but no one is fooled by your flip-flopping between wanting a separation and then not wanting it. We know why you're doing this.

On a side note since April 2004, 14 states in the US have said no to gay marriage.

This is very good news. Hmm I may move to Sweden now!! Hurray for them!! Proves the US is the ickiest place ever.

My point is, why have a "church" bless it if you're an atheist. Sure, have a civil ceremony - but why "bless" if you literally do not believe in such things?

It's like celebrating Christmas if you're an atheist. Put up the tree. Sing religious carols door to door. Exchange presents. Wish people a Merry Christmas. Maybe even go to the local church for the big carol singalong.

I've seen too many atheists do this, and I want to understand the dialectic.

To an atheists, technically, all religious ceremonies should have equally worthless value. Why aren't droves of atheists emulating the people who are celebrating Ramadan?

Hey, i'm not celebrating Jesus's birth at christmas - i'm simply celebrating a midwinter festival like the pagans used to before the church adopted it as a convienient date to name as the birth of christ, so people wouldn't feel like their customs were being changed and would be more willing to convert.

yay for Sweden, i guess

Thoughts?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you hated churches? I know I certainly wouldn't give a rat ass what they thought of me! I'm straight, and I got married by the Mayor of the town, in my Mother in laws back yard. Blah to the church and their stranglehold on marriage, I say! Blah!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you hated churches? I know I certainly wouldn't give a rat ass what they thought of me! I'm straight, and I got married by the Mayor of the town, in my Mother in laws back yard. Blah to the church and their stranglehold on marriage, I say! Blah!

I have nothing against churches. Only the evil ones. And the Church of Sweden is not so evil. It's not for me, but I am happy that those that wish to have a ceremony there will get one.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=554&a=479920&previousRenderType=6

The highest deciding organ for the Swedish Church (which used to be state church before the separation of church and state), the democratically elected Kyrkomötet, overwhelmingly (160 votes to 81, 8 abstentions) voted yes to a proposition which lets it bless homosexual couples that enter into a civil marriage ("partnerskap" which grants gay couples all the rights a marriage grants straight couples).

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=479686&previousRenderType=6

The Swedish government is about to introduce a law that will correct what had been called a "system error" by HomO, the government appointed Ombudsman on Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation. The law will change Sweden's marriage laws so that those who have been authorised to perform weddings can no longer refuse to perform civil marriages of gay couples. Previously the two tasks were kept separate, and one needed to apply for both "positions" to be able to perform them, but come January 2006 they will be made one. Those who refuse to wed gay couples will be stripped of their right to wed straight ones as well. This only applies to civil marriages - clergy men able to wed couples are not affected, as the law so far only permits civil marriages for gay couples.

But even that is about to change. The government is expected to propose a new law changing the Swedish Äktenskapsbalken to make it gender neutral, rendering all marriages in Sweden gender neutral. It is expected to rescind the traditional ability of the Church of Sweden (and other denominations/religions who have applied for and been granted it) to legally wed couples, leaving them with only the ceremonial part of the wedding.

All these three things combined, blessings from the church should one wish to have one + instance of discrimination eliminated + end to a no longer necessary distinction between marriages, the future is looking bright for gay couples in this country - straight couples, too, actually. I may shun nationalism like the plague, but sometimes even I manage to find it in me to be proud of our little Realm, and have a usually disturbing but now joyous sense of happiness to live where I live. It makes me so glad to see that things here are going forward through our steady reform process instead of stagnating or going backwards like in some other places. I'm hoping the feeling will pass soon and give way to my usual cynicism. :)

Thoughts?


Glad to see some country's are gaining wisdom and maturity

I don't think the Church of Sweden should bother calling itself a church any more. With stuff like this it's become Christian in name only. Have they even bothered opening a bible?

I have nothing against churches. Only the evil ones. And the Church of Sweden is not so evil. It's not for me, but I am happy that those that wish to have a ceremony there will get one.
Duly corrected. And just so ya know, I wasn't tryin to be a dick, I seriously meant it. I mean, if you are with a guy/girl , and you love him/her, who gives a rats ass what the church says? But I guess people who are religious do, huh?

But to be fair, Bravo for them! Now, lets see if we can get wine replaced with Yukon Jack! THEN I'll be impressed! :D

I don't think the Church of Sweden should bother calling itself a church any more. With stuff like this it's become Christian in name only. Have they even bothered opening a bible?

Yup. They seem to have discovered this guy named Jesus.

Yup. They seem to have discovered this guy named Jesus.
Don't equate yourself with him, Fass! He was a lazy hippie who couldn't keep a job! Your better than that!

Don't equate yourself with him, Fass! He was a lazy hippie who couldn't keep a job! Your better than that!

Jesus was a nice character. It's that misogynistic and misanthropic Paul that would need a cock punch.

Jesus was a nice character. It's that misogynistic and misanthropic Paul that would need a cock punch.
Cockpunch?Thats definately a new one for me! lol
And who's Paul? I don't know diddly about Christianity. Personally, I think we have enough heroes nowadays to look up to, and don't need to look that far back..

Ya know, when I first glanced at this thread, I thought it said "Swedish Chef to bless gay marriages"

Bork bork bork!

So, the Swedish church finally stopped ignoring one third of the Swedish population...

Ya know, when I first glanced at this thread, I thought it said "Swedish Chef to bless gay marriages"

Bork bork bork!

That would be awesome! The Swedish Chef should bless all marriages, straight and gay!

related to what I posted above, my friend made this picture:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y18/monarcofdaglen/gaymarriage2004copy.jpg

Anyway, I'm glad that the Swedish Church is doing this. I wish more American churches would do the same.

Wow. Religion a la carte. Way to go.

Wow. Religion a la carte. Way to go.
Religion is for the people, not the other way around, my friend.

I read an article on this a few days ago. A gay couple wanted to get blessed but they couldn't. I thought: "Why would a gay couple wan't their blessing from an organisation that has spitted and frowned on homosexuality for a thousand years?"

But Fass explained it neatly; they wan't to get married in a church, not get accepted by God. Which in turn is stupid as a normal wedding costs 100,000 kr+ in Sweden, (10,000 €). If I wanted to spend the rest of my life with a gay partner I'd just say so and apply for "sambo"-ship. (Sambo=live together) The state wouldn't mind and I'd save a lot of money.

Well, tradition matters, I presume. I wouldn't know, I'm not baptized or confirmized, and me and my parents are atheists...

The highest deciding organ for the Swedish Church (which used to be state church before the separation of church and state), the democratically elected Kyrkomötet, overwhelmingly (160 votes to 81, 8 abstentions) voted yes to a proposition which lets it bless homosexual couples that enter into a civil marriage ("partnerskap" which grants gay couples all the rights a marriage grants straight couples).

-snip-

Thoughts?

Good on em, I say. I hope the Australian churches & governments get off their arses & recognise that gay couples should have the rights as heterosexuals.

So, the Swedish church finally stopped ignoring one third of the Swedish population... :confused: But that's what churches are supposed to do…

It's like celebrating Christmas if you're an atheist. Put up the tree. Sing religious carols door to door. Exchange presents. Wish people a Merry Christmas. Maybe even go to the local church for the big carol singalong.
Well, when you consider that the Tree is a pagan symbol, and that the pagan festival of the start of winter (correct me if I'm wrong - Samhain?) was always around the December 22-25 mark, then the bottom falls out of that argument.
Why are Christians participating in a pagan festival, involving the set-up of a pagan icon? The same happens at Easter, formerly the Roman festival of Eostre. The eggs are also pagan. People are married with rings, a pagan symbol of life, death and rebirth.

These ceremonies continue, even if the faith behind them does not. If the wedding ring continues after 2000 years of Christianity, surely you can't attack atheists who are only a few generations out of the Church?

Well, when you consider that the Tree is a pagan symbol, and that the pagan festival of the start of winter (correct me if I'm wrong - Samhain?)...

Yule. Samhain is basically Halloween.

Well, when you consider that the Tree is a pagan symbol, and that the pagan festival of the start of winter (correct me if I'm wrong - Samhain?) was always around the December 22-25 mark, then the bottom falls out of that argument.
Why are Christians participating in a pagan festival, involving the set-up of a pagan icon? The same happens at Easter, formerly the Roman festival of Eostre. The eggs are also pagan. People are married with rings, a pagan symbol of life, death and rebirth.

These ceremonies continue, even if the faith behind them does not. If the wedding ring continues after 2000 years of Christianity, surely you can't attack atheists who are only a few generations of of the Church?

Samhain is now Halloween.

The winter solstice, the longest night of the year, is December 21st. Many Pagan religions had festivals/holy days around that time of year, and yes, the tree, yule log, etc. are all pagan traditions that were co-opted later by Christianity.

Samhain is now Halloween.

The winter solstice, the longest night of the year, is December 21st. Many Pagan religions had festivals/holy days around that time of year, and yes, the tree, yule log, etc. are all pagan traditions that were co-opted later by Christianity.

The winter solstice, the festival of sun return, was one of (if not) the most important dates in the pagan calender. It was totally adopted by the early Christian Church to encourage converts to the new religion.

Yule. Samhain is basically Halloween.
Ah, thanks. Wasn't sure at first, hence my question.