RSS:
Publications
Comments

Swedish government – it’s illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true.

Courtesy of The Guardian:

The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools – after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum’s time will have to be secular. “Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism,” said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund.

Creationism and ID are explicitly banned but so is proselytising even in religious education classes. The Qur’an may not be taught as if it is true even in Muslim independent schools, nor may the Bible in Christian schools. The decision looks like a really startling attack on the right of parents to have their children taught what they would like. Of course it does not go so far as the Dawkins policy of prohibiting parents from trying to pass on their doctrines even in their own families – and, if it did, it would certainly run foul of the European convention on human rights. It does not even go as far as Nyamko Sabuni, the minister for integration – herself born in Burundi – would like: she wanted to ban all religious schools altogether. But it is still a pretty drastic measure from an English perspective.

The law is being presented in Sweden as if it mostly concerned fundamentalist Christian sects in the backwoods; but the Christian Democratic party, which represents such people if anyone does, is perfectly happy with the new regulation. There is little doubt that combating Islamic fundamentalism is the underlying aim, especially in conjunction with another new requirement that all independent schools declare all their funding sources. This would allow the inspectors – whose budget is being doubled – to concentrate their efforts on those schools most likely to be paid to break the rules.

It’s good to see a few governments brave enough to take a stand against supernatural thinking being presented as established fact.  Theists demand we accept their opinions as fact without feeling compelled to offer any sort of credible evidence to support their claims.

Sweden has issued a challenge with this law; if theists want their beliefs to be taught as fact, provide as much proof as science has for evolution or gravity.


  • jessielmays
    I think that's going too far. The measure is a great thing for public schools; taxpayer money should never be used to advance the personal beliefs of any faith group. But private schools? If you are paying for your child's education, you should be able to choose what is included in that price.
  • Here's the problem with that position. We expect the state to protect children, even from their parents if that's necessary. We don't object to laws that protect children from kidnapping or molestation. If we expect the state to protect a child's body, why not their mind? Is one less important than the other?

    The accommodating mentality that would allow parents or schools to teach something as fact when it is really nothing more than belief or opinion isn't an attitude of tolerance. It appears to be, but in reality allowing fiction and unestablished belief to be presented as established fact is to allow our children to be misled and lied to. While we may wish to not offend, those determined to subjugate the minds of children are not so polite. They will take advantage of our reticence to promote their personal brand of belief and present it as fact to minds too young to critically examine it.

    People do indeed pay for private education, but are children in private education any less entitled to an honest and factual education? Should those parents not get their money's worth?
  • JD
    My friend used to go to the catholic school Holy Family, when he first enrolled he was given a test. One of the Questions was whether or not extra terrestrial life existed. He said yes and got the question wrong. This is one of the first steps to a religious free world.
  • James_Smith
    Gee, an intelligent decision about Intelligent Design! From a government no less!

    Next thing we know, They'll declare that people use facts when voting instead of political nonsense. Wait, what am I saying? No, let's be rational...
  • Chubbles
    I am all on board with taking religion out of public schools. But private schools? They only exis because you can teach religion in them. People pay good money to bring their kids up in them.

    Shame on you, Swedish government. The single bad thing about religion-forcing it upon other people-is being repeated here. As in ANY well adjusted government, you should under no circumstances restrict your citizens in any way. Why protest against telling people how to marry if you're going to have your freedom of thought taken away? It's just... not right. It's like banning preaching in churches, or eating in a McDonalds.
  • Great news!
  • Beautiful!
  • I will be sure to share it with my friends over at facebook and myspace. Thumbs up for the article.
  • That's a very useful article. I will be sure to send it around to my friends over at facebook and myspace.
  • wuz2blu
    What scientific "proof" can possibly be offered for a process [evolution] that supposedly takes place over thousands or millions of years? Evolution is as much a faith-based belief as creationism, it's just that proponents of creationism are honest about that fact.
  • One can adopt this view only if one has never studied evolutionary theory.
    It's this sort of uninformed attitude that Sweden hopes to avoid. There is
    sufficient evidence in nature for evolution to be considered a scientific
    fact. "An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as
    true (although its truth is never final)." I know theists think that since
    science refuses to make absolute statements or claim absolute truth that
    this means we accept its findings on faith. Nothing could be further from
    the truth. Science draws non-absolute conclusions based on evidence.
    Theology presumes a god for which there is no evidence in nature then
    demands belief based on faith. If you really want to understand how
    evolution works and why it usually takes millions of years, read texts on
    evolutionary biology or attend a class. At least at that point, if you still
    wish to deny the evidence, you can do so intelligently. Perhaps you'll
    discover an alternate theory that accounts for all the evidence but points
    to a different conclusion. Scientists have been trying to do that for over
    200 years now. Maybe you'll be the one to pull it off.
  • j
    This makes me all the more happier that I am moving to Sweden and that my fiance is swedish. GO SWEDEN! I totally agree. School should be where you learn FACTS. NOT myths and tales spread by the fearful and ignorant.
  • that is such an awesome thing to do... religion should not be taught in schools at all...
    parents can teach their kids at home if they want
  • CAL
    This is such an abuse on the part of the Swedish government. Even private religious schools now cannot teach their texts as if they were true. How long before they move onto churches? Do people have the right to freedom of speech or not?

    If the secular worldview happens to have the most evidence going for it, then it will win in the hearts and minds of people in the long term in a free society, no matter what minority of people still cling to a given belief system.

    The notion that the government should be the arbiter of truth in the public and private lives of the people is so intrinsic to the concept of totalitarianism that their desire to get away with it is truly shocking.

    Regarding RAMMSTEIN about freedom of religious education depriving the child of rights, give me a break. Humans are altricial species, and so are dependent on their parents for guidance and instruction for a portion of their lives. The school system is secondary to this primary source of guidance and education. If the parents have no claim on what the child is to be educated about, then no one else does either. Certainly not some body politic deciding how to best breed fresh meat for its constituent parts.

    How would you feel if you were forced to pay money to fund a school that would take away your child each day and fill it with nonsense that you don't agree with? Whatever specific doctrine the school happens to be espousing doesn't matter.

    Parents are given authority over their child by the sentiment that they love them and want the best for them. That maxim stays until it's demonstrated that they are consciously acting against the child's interests.

    As a child ages, they become more self-aware and autonomous and able to make decisions for themselves. In a country where there is active dialogue between several worldviews they will learn and grow into one that they find appealing or more truthful. This is crippled in a place like Sweden, where censoring certain views in education is now allowed.
  • RAMMSTEIN
    Cal,

    You have reverted back to the "parent is always right" argument. This is so often not the case. I work in a lower socio-economic school and I see on a daily basis the "parental influence" that children suffer. Humans may be altricial, but does that mean that it is the best way to be? You obviously believe so but my experience (both personal and professional) leads me to believe otherwise.

    Your comment on parental authority perplexes me. Let me get this straight. So as long as parents aren't "consciously" harming their children its ok, but if they consciously do it then someone else should step in? That makes no sense to me.
    Harm is harm and blinding children by enforcing only one viewpoint is disadvantageous. It is worse still when a particular viewpoint is forced upon them without them having the opportunity to decide for themselves! Look at the jehovas or the morons (mormans). You cannot attempt to promote that as a healthy and balanced upbringing for a child!

    Also, did you not read my opinion on if religion is to be taught then it should be taught from all perspectives thus giving the child the choice?

    "Paying for nonsense that you don't agree with"??? Welcome to the world for atheists who have had religion rammed down their necks in schools for centuries.

    As for your comment on totalitarianism and removal of rights. For centuries it has been religious organisations have have been the totalitarians and taken away the rights of the "non-believers". Now the shoe is on the other foot and they are bitching. If you knew anything about Sweden you would know that it is one of the most liberal societies in the world. They are generally accepting of different viewpoints, even religious ones. The argument is not about religion being allowed, it's about them (religious groups) providing "PROOF" before they teach it as FACT. Something that they are yet to do. ( and no, people believing it to be true and PROOF are 2 very different things!)
  • Joakim
    Very well written!
    "The parents are always right" is so deeply rooted in us humans that it sometimes harms us.

    As a Swedish citizen, I am somewhat puzzled about some of the comments here. Sweden is a country where we value democracy, human rights, equality etc. very highly. This has been proven through several studies at many different occasions that we are pretty good at it.

    We would never pass a law that points fingers at a specific group and say "hey, you are not allowed to believe that!". It is a major difference in believing something and teaching belief in school. You can believe whatever you want even if you are lacking evidence, but you may never teach this to children who are unable to apply critical thinking. The school teaches facts that can be proven, and that is the way it should be in a sane world.

    I also see no reason to justify the existence of private religious schools. Think about it, do we really need MORE labels to put on our children in a world filled with ethnicity (with ethnicity comes racism and xenophobia), prejudice, subcultures, etc. that seperates them from one another? I think private religious schools will just increase the segregation further by adding other labels than they are born with. A child can not belong to a religion, it's just a worthless label.
  • bil
    do you think the church would allow science to be taught there
  • RAMMSTEIN
    That's exactly my point! They are complaining that there rights are being taken away yet they take the rights of the kids without a second thought. Why do they have ultimate power. They haven't studied educational psychology, to know the effects that their decisions will have on these children. All the Swedish government is doing is allowing those who actually know how to best educate a child to do their jobs. I once watched a "talk" that the principal and pastor of a school had with year 11 students on how science fits in with their religion! Go figure....IT DOESN'T. Yet they are literally allowed to teach what ever the hell they want and no one is allowed to ask questions! It's absurd.
  • RAMMSTEIN
    sorry about the typo! "Their" instead of "there" in the first sentence :p
  • RAMMSTEIN
    It both amuses and frustrates me to no end when I read comments saying that parents reserve the right to do WHATEVER they want to their children and no one should say otherwise. What credentials do parents have that make them the choosers of curriculum, thus deciding absolutely what their children will be exposed to? Where are the childrens' civil rights here??? Further to this religious groups know how impressionable young minds are and bank on this as a means to secure a following. It is the state's responsibility (who employ education professionals) to ensure that children are able to grow up in a safe environment. This includes protecting them from fundamental religion being forced on them by parents who take the "we are always right, we are the parents" approach! I am a teacher and I have seen what happens to children who buck against the religious teachings of a religious school. If this is appropriate pedagogy, then why don't we just bring back corporal punishment while we are at it? As usual, those going in to bat for the side of religion only look at things from their perspective. IF, religion is to be taught at all in schools, the only socially just way for it to be done is if a multitude of religions/viewpoints (atheism included) were taught and the students themselves were able to CHOOSE which one they wished to follow.
  • Simon George
    Good. I'm glad that Sweden is being tough on what is essentially brain-washing. I hope the entire world does the same.
  • Waldemar
    This can be taken a little bit further. Science cannot be accepted as 100% fact either. It is done from the perspective of present human reality. Science here can be very different from science billions of miles away, or even in another dimension. So if you're going to go this far, then it should also be correct to emphasize that all science works around theories too, or at least that it's science based on today's reality. Science 100 years ago is not the same science today, and certainly today's science won't be the same science 100 years from now (if we still exist). So in conclusion, reality is an illusion. It cannot be explained as fact because it will always be explained from our limited perspective of our current reality as we know it. "What goes up, eventually comes down" is not certainly a law, it changes according to the perspective of the surrounding reality. It's the same with everything.

    At any moment something can happen that will change all science as we know it, then what is accepted as 'fact' today will be mistaken, and what is mistaken today will be accepted as self-evident. I think that's a quote I've read before.

    Take care.
  • You're right, and that's actually one of the strengths of science that
    religion can't emulate.

    Science doesn't pretend to deal in absolutes. Scientists are honest about
    the fact that all our theories are simply the best conclusions we can reach
    at this time based on the available evidence and limited to the
    means/technology we have to use.

    Religion, by attempting to be absolute, cannot incorporate new information.
    Each religion was written for people thousands or hundreds of years ago and
    cannot adapt to a changing environment since it pretends to be absolutely
    true as written down.
  • Jon K
    I have no problem with theism being rejected completely by public schools, I'm 100% for it. But at private schools? That's going too far. People should be allowed to believe what they want to believe. It's just as bad for an Atheist to subject a theist to their beliefs as it is the other way around.
  • Hikamori
    Don't try to say that everyone in private schools are there by choice. If there was no question all of them belong there, then fine with us. However, until then, you cannot say that private schools are private. Yes, I believe in something.
  • B.G
    On the one hand I agree that people should be allowed to believe what they will but at the same time this isn't expected to be stretched to desctructive beliefs which let's face it religion is. It is a huge obstruction to an increase in overall human intelligence and causes many more wars than it has stopped. While many of the morals and such are good in religion people eventually need to be weaned from the fairy tales that go along with it. There's nothing wrong with giving children all the evidence we have towards something, but to tell them that whatever religious scripture is simply right with no evidence is just wrong. Give children all the evidence and let them make up their own minds.
  • jamie
    On the other hand, NO young person should be taught religion as fact. It leaves no room for free thinking.
  • Alison Robin
    If only it were so in the United States.
  • Abdiel
    Awesome, I'm Mexican and that would be awesome here, I used to be on a Catholic school and that was one of the worst part of my life, this should be implemented everywhere else, it was so wierd to have a professor saying that big bang created the world and for other side i had a professor (from Religion class) who was sure that god created it so..WTF? Science and Religion shouldn't be mixed
  • urizen9
    Religion is not something worth discussing. There is artistic experience. When that's projected onto a communal structure (see tribes) it gets a different name and some of its practices attempt to resist even normal changes. As most other things it is partly necessary so not every generation has to reinvent its collective memory from nothing. Partly it can become toxic especially when changes are so paramount. By preserving good wisdom it also has a side effect of resisting change.
    Of its "officials" I would say they're mostly misfits, artists of a kind writ large in a dimension.
  • interesting post. I would like to republish on secularearth.com home page with full credit and a link backl to your site. Please respond to my email adress if you wish to allow.

    cheers
  • I have no problem with that. Glad you enjoyed it.
  • Bojan
    "to have your children taught as you would like"???? Who in the right mind can actually make sense out of this?? Universal schooling was put in place EXACTLY to avoid having new generations as stupid as the ones that came before, and it is quite obvious that in the USA a large proportion of voters were home schooled or worse, attended public schools with a yearly federal budget equivalent of an f16 fighter jet. Do not feel bad about it, you were forced (or lulled with consumerism) to become too stupid to learn history and you are repeating it, just like the saying goes. You are a fascist country and the world is trembling like a person who suddenly faces a well-armed psychopath. May your god come and take you all to heaven as soon as possible, good riddance. And to think that just 10 years ago I loved you...
  • Good thing. Sweden rocks. Respect. I wish my country took down that stupid religion from schools, TV and everything.
  • Steve
    Interesting. I wish it were the law here. There needs to be MORE separation of church and state an the USA, not less! Vote Democratic. PLEASE?
  • Interesting to see that Doris was in no hurry to get back to you with conclusive proof of the existance of Holy Spirit energy.

    Good work Sweden, but I would have gone more down the path of Dawkins and Sabuni. All organised religion is a disease that needs to be eradicated. Sure we can hope that most religious followers are not fundamentalists and therefore pose no risk to the advancement of mankind, but this is simply not true.

    Scratch a follower, find a fundamentalist. Religious people are mentally ill and incapable of following paths of logic. If this fact was not hidden under the cloak of respect for religions it would be seen as a social problem of epidemic proportions. Our mental institutions would be full to overflowing.
  • RAMMSTEIN
    Nice point about Doris' disappearing act Scott - a little like someone else we know hey ;p I find it both amusing and offensive that God botherers demand evidence for evolution yet can provide nothing but 2000 year old rhetoric to support their claims! According to them their argument is so solid but all it comes down to is feelings and emotions.

    As for the mental illness issue, again if someone were getting around telling people that pixies in the garden were talking to them they would be institutionalised Yet if god talks to someone that's perfectly rational behaviour. When was the last time anyone actually saw god???
  • Antistitious
    Hooray for us. I recently heard that over 80% of us were atheist or agnostic.
    And even then, those who are christians believe in scientific fact. Seriously, most of the bible is written by monks who didn't know more than you and me. Jesus didn't claim that the stars were fixed on a giant plexiglass that surrounded earth. He said we should be good to each other, which most christians should pay more attention to than say... the rapture
  • It's the parent's right to put their kids through a school that matches their belief. What is so wrong with someone thinking Jesus is real? Hell, might as well tell them Santa is totally made up before school just to make sure the lie doesn't continue.
  • It's the parent's right to put their kids through a school that matches their belief. What is so wrong with someone thinking Jesus is real? Hell, might as well tell them Santa is totally made up before school just to make sure the lie doesn't continue.
  • mirrzz
    it is the paren'ts right but what their government is thinking about is the child's right. their right to make their own choices and prevent being brainwashed. kids can't stand up for themselves. someone has to. and if the kid decides on his own that he wants to follow a certain faith then fine, go right ahead.
  • ndm
    100% solution to one big problem.
  • Max ST
    Amen to that. Religion in schools is equivalent to Nazism in schools if you ask me. And some kid sued his school for discriminating against atheism. So from the viewpoint of a british school-goer, i'd say lets all act a bit more swedish.
  • Ty
    The issue resides in your belief of what is freedom. Just like any other political debate that masses two opposing sides together, this does as well, but not as simply as Athiest vs. Religious. I, being atheist, am more perturbed by the consequences of this decision towards freedoms. On one hand, you are forcing citizens away from what should be their right to parenting. It seems more like a disservice to the some Swedes who wish to teach their children what they believe, which is historically pretty much a right. On the topic of public schooling, common sense has shown me that a person of Islamic faith absolutely will be shunned/bullied/outcasted in the system. The law, not imposing on the teaching of the religion, but on the state doing so seems politically 'pristine' as well. It is today's fundamental perfection of the seperation of church and state. So what do you side with? The necessary truth? The hopeful and fundamental perfect law? I must say, being an athiest, that I would like to see all religion weeded out eventually. But thinking so only satisfies my needs and not those of the many children being blasted on both sides of the coin about what is most likely their most important belief through life. Just like putting a child through the hell that would be the Kansas Krazies, the God Hates Fags crew, would be ludicrous I can see how just such an alienation of what could actually be a very important political freedom could damage youth and set a tone that not only disagrees with a large number of citizens, but persecutes them. To be perfectly honest, I can't decide what to think of the issue!
  • Reg
    The problem I see with this is the word Truth. It's not the same as fact. The theory of evolution is a close approximation of truth based on the facts that we see in the world, just as creationism was hundreds of years ago. Teaching children to be sceptical is one thing, but telling them what not to believe is the same as telling them what to believe. The end result is the population becomes a flock of sheep, except this flock is bleating about the inferiority of religious ideas to science. Science becomes the government doctrine, and society is once again undercontrol.
    I don't like is.
  • But no one's telling them what not to believe. This law is simply saying
    that religion cannot be taught as factual in schools. Religion will still be
    passed along to children at home and in churches as it has for hundreds of
    years.

    In some sense schools have to teach what not to believe, or at least show
    what's been discredited or never supported by evidence in the first place.
    We don't need children to think that alchemy's possible or that people may
    be living inside the Earth. We discredit unsupported notions all the time.
    Only religion gets a pass from critical examination by means of making
    extraordinary claims without substantiation.
  • xfghdf
    Wooohoo...
    Finally a sensible decision!
    How can you teach something as fact that can not be proven?
    Religion has actually convinced people that there`s an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do..And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever `til the end of time! ...But He loves you.

    Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.

    And to those people who don`t like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn`t have such funny beliefs! Doesn`t it bother you that you put more logical thought into choosing a car than you do in choosing a god? Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one.
    Further more, to those that want to convert my condemned sole, if god doesn`t like the way I live, let him tell me, not you!

    I will end with a definition of christianity as defined by the bible.
    --Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
  • Josh Cook
    Fuckin' EH! This is a great step in the right direction, score one for free thinking.
  • Finally! I think this is fantastic. Too bad american governments need religion too much (for money) to get rid of it.
    Don't you think it's horrifying that in america we have parents who become outraged if their kids are taught about sex in school, saying that if they want their kids to learn about sex they'll teach them "what they need to know", but when it comes to religion (ie: christianity), they're outraged if their kids aren't taught it in schools.

    Huzzah for the Swedish. :)
    <3
  • Dominique
    No one in America seems to know what this country is based on- religious freedom. the freedom to choose what religion to follow, or to choose not be religious. no atheist should be forced to live under christian rule when they live in a democracy in which the constitution explicity states that no religion shall be respected by the government. no child should be sent to a school and told what to believe. schools are to educate, not to teach bullshit. the sad thing is, most of these schools teach false beliefs before critically thinking skills. that should tell you something.
  • USA atheist here. Sweden we need you, the world must grow up and soon. Please don't judge us all by the likes of Cheney, bush or the blind ignorance coming from our press.
    The comment by this Doris, silly as it is, would find wide eyed acceptance around Washington these times. Read & ponder the likes of Ingersoll, Sam Harris,Dawkins - , then see how you feel about superstition.
  • TnD
    Evolution has no real proofs either. At least supernatural things can be experienced, even if only by those who believe. We still do not experience trans-species evolution. Who is really the thinker?
  • IAmAnon
    Evolution, at least, has evidence. The supernatural experience, however, can be fully, and scientifically, proven. It's in the field of psychology.
  • Ed
    I'm atheist and fully disagree with this. It's the parent's right to put their kids through a school that matches their belief. What is so wrong with someone thinking Jesus is real? Hell, might as well tell them Santa is totally made up before school just to make sure the lie doesn't continue.

    Also, I feel this makes us look just as bad as the three major religions throughout AD. At least in the sense of pushing our beliefs onto people.
  • Zero
    I suddenly want to move to Sweden...
  • Adjutor
    Sweden's socialism aside, this is a very stupid law. It isn't stupid because it bans religious teaching in public institutions, it is stupid (and wrong) because it bans a private institution from acting in a private capacity. The function of that private entity is irrelevant, if they want to teach something as ridiculous as (insert religion here), then that is their business. No one has the right to tell them they may not do so. If a parent wants their child to have a secular education, they ought to have that choice. If they want them to have a religious education, they also ought to have that right. There is no justification for coercing a certain set of beliefs. People frequently get angry about religious teaching in public schools, and they should. But they should also realize it works both ways - everyone has the right to believe in what they want to believe in, even if its retarded.
  • I agree that portion of the law goes too far and isn't necessary or
    defensible. As you suggest, if someone wants to establish a private school
    that teaches alchemy or spell-making, they should be free to do so. I have
    no objection if people wish to have their children taught superstitions and
    magic, as long as they're are willing to pay for it themselves.
  • Professor
    Jeber,

    My gosh, it's like trying to reason with a common ancestor of an ape. That's just a joke, not an attack. Do you not know that Dobzhansky wrote "Mankind Evolving," still a definitive text on the subject of evolutionary thought. You are simply wrong on each and every salient point you are trying to make. We do, indeed call ourselves evolutionists. I should know what I call myself for Pete's sake.

    I regret that I do not have time to continue this fruitless debate. I've provided you with well constructed counterpoints each time, and continue to get flat assertions in return. That's not the way intelligent debate works. This is the point of me calling you "ignorant," it is not an Ad hominem attack as you suggest, but simply descriptive of your argumentation, or rather lack thereof.

    Now read this carefully. For the most part, the fact that journals and other publications that you respect so much do not publish articles and research in which they disagree with the world view of the authors is no secret to the vast majority of the scientific community. As a matter of fact this was one thing Ben Stein did get right. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates ignorance on this subject, which seems to me to knock quite a bit of wind out of your sails.

    I would no more generally expect an article of such nature to be in a journal that I read than one espousing some proof of macro-evolution to appear in a Creationists publication. Creationists are their own peers, as are evolutionists because we do not "caucus," so to speak with one another.

    How is this so hard for you to understand? I'll write this for the last time. Think.
  • I honestly have no further replies to make to you, either. Someone who
    describes me as ignorant for presuming my opinion to be valid while at the
    same time presuming the correctness of their own opinion without even
    acknowledging the blatant double standard is not listening or responding.

    I hate wasting pixels.
  • JD
    Having last night watched the Channel 4 documentary (Dispatches) filmed undercover in a London mosque where religous and racial hatred was being preached I believe the Swedes should be applauded for making such a stand.
  • Professor
    JD,

    This law would do nothing about that. That is unfortunate and wrong headed religious diatribe which is still protected in Sweden even under this new proposal. Think.
  • Ben Jones
    The Scandinavian countries are the most peaceful on Earth and of course they are almost entirely atheist.

    Religious stories are just that, stories. They hold no truth at all. Darwin demonstrated clearly 150 years ago where we came from and the science of genetics shows how exact his theory is. Well done Sweden.

    Countries in the Middle East are still uncivilised and living in the dark ages but that will change over time. What America's excuse is fails me.
  • Professor
    Ben,
    Darwin postulated, suggested, even theorized, but most clearly did not demonstrate. Since you are ignorant of this most basic fact it's no surprise you also don't know that the same sets of facts can be interpreted just as well through prisms outside of your limited knowledge. You are ignorant of arguments even within the field you champion, but at least recognize your ignorance and don't write a comment here, or anywhere else.

    Some Creationists, for example, postulate that similarities between various species are sensibly explained because they all originated from a common designer, not a common ancestor. To them, given the complete lack in the fossil record of what they consider to be true transitional forms, this makes for a more scientific explanation than that typically given by many, if not the majority of evolutionists.

    Same evidence + varying world views = different interpretations.

    No matter how scientific we believe we are being (methodologically) it is difficult, if not impossible, to see outside of our individual prisms. In many cases (probably the majority) Creationists and ID's are no less rigorous in their science, they just know God. Their experience trumps superfluous arguments to the contrary, as to whether or not He exists, in their opinion.

    Evolution is a belief, adherents of which I respect, but I also respect men of good will who, for scientific and alternate world view reasons, do not agree with the overall theory. It's not gravity, a proven, falsifiable, testable theory. Evolution has too many different ideas regarding mechanism, etc. even among it's proponents to be considered in the same vein.

    Let's stop demonizing men and women we used to agree with, who for their own reasons leave the fold of evolution and join the ranks of ID or Creationism. Or, at the very least, let's stop pretending that their science is somehow not equal to ours. Their world view is what we really disagree with.

    Actually my own views are complicated. I agree with their world view (that God exists) and with evolution too.
  • Professor,
    Re: "given the complete lack in the fossil record of what they consider to
    be true transitional forms". Transitional fossils exist, see
    http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html. Creationists and the ID
    crowd won't accept true transitional fossils as they lack an understanding
    of evolution and expect to see forms that evolution doesn't produce.

    Re: "Creationists and ID's are no less rigorous in their science". Utter and
    complete nonsense. Please cite any peer reviewed articles submitted that
    scientifically supports the notions they propose. "Design" is a human
    perception, not an objective standard.

    Re: "Or, at the very least, let's stop pretending that their science is
    somehow not equal to ours." No one's pretending. Creationism and ID are not
    based on science. They draw a conclusion first (god) then attempt to find
    evidence which supports it. Science starts with evidence and attempts to
    draw conclusions that account for it. Theists don't practice science, they
    depend on faith.

    Re: "Evolution has too many different ideas regarding mechanism, etc. even
    among it's proponents to be considered in the same vein." Evolution is not
    an absolute fact in the same sense that theists suggest god is. Still,
    evolution is well documented, explains the evidence very well, and is
    generally accepted by scientistists in all the life sciences.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact....

    The idea that "god did it" or that life is the product of some unknown
    designer are concepts that cannot be supported by science. They provide no
    testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence.

    ID also has a problem with infinite regression. If *everything *is created,
    who or what created the designer, or god for that matter.
  • Professor
    It's a shame to remain ignorant with Google so handy. Here's a link I got for you that answers that old canard about Creationists not being published in peer reviewed journals.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

    Sincerely,

    Jeff Payne
    Theistic Evolutionist
  • Professor
    Jeber,

    You've missed, disagree with, or just fail to address my main point, which is that all of us come with preconceived ideas (i.e. prejudice) to this debate. For you to say that Creationists don't understand evolution and that's the reason they cannot see transitional forms is both uninformed and ignores the fact that many who are now Creationists were at one time very well-respected evolutionists who published plenty of peer reviewed articles/studies before they "switched parties." Evolutionists (myself included) for the most part, rely no more exclusively on the scientific method than Creationists do. Today that's mostly not about belief or non-belief in a god, but in assuming the fact of evolution a priori, which colors every scrap of evidence.

    In summary - You would lose any properly adjudicated, or audience voted debate, because you are wrong. Your responses add weight to my argument. Can't you see that? You are obviously intelligent. Think.
  • "Evolutionists (myself included) for the most part, rely no more exclusively
    on the scientific method than Creationists do."
    That's a correctable shortcoming on the part of those who accept anything
    without examining the underlying methodology. Intellectual laziness is not a
    defensible position.
    You failed to address the fact that creationism and ID are not based on
    evidence and have not submitted anything for peer review that they believe
    supports their contentions. Faith is not science, science does not require
    faith.
  • Professor
    Jeber,

    It's simply not true that Creationists and IDs have not submitted anything for critical peer review. Some has even been published, gaining in at least a few instances, some terrible notoriety for editors that raised the political ire of the establishment community, even causing some of them to lose their positions. This environment tends to stifle future efforts. It's basically an "old boys club" that only allows those who salute the company policy. Therefore Creationists and IDs publish in journals that basically already agree with them, as do evolutionists. No discernible difference. You're smart, but ignorant. Think.
  • Then it shouldn't be too hard to cite one or two that have been peer reviewed. By the way, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist" except in the minds of theists. That's not an accurate way to describe those who accept evolution as the best explanation we currently have for the natural processes that cause differentiation within species. Evolution is not a matter of faith, nor is it an absolute answer. If anyone can offer a better explanation they are welcome to present it. Despite what Ben Stein lies about in Expelled, there's no conspiracy to keep people ignorant of ID. It fails by its own merits.

    Please try to restrict yourself to a discussion of the topic and cease trying to psychoanalyze me. You don't know me and thus are sure to reach erroneous conclusions.
  • Professor
    I have not offered a psychoanalysis. It's obvious you are smart, however you are ignorant, . . even if only ignorant of the myriad former evolutionists who were published, and ignorant of the numerous peer reviewed publications for the communities that disagree with you. Who are the peers for Creationists? Evolutionists have their peers review their studies, and when someone who is not in their community dares to submit they are rarely, if ever published. The same would be true of an Evolutionist submitting an article for peer review to an ID publication. Not only would it normally not be published, but these people are not there "peers."

    You are also ignorant of the fact that Evolutionists do refer to ourselves as Evolutionists. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a well published, well respected Biologist, even by Evolutionists, for example referred to himself often and in print as a Theistic Evolutionist, which is one way I sometimes refer to myself. Ignorance is not a psychological profile, but a state of being. For example, I am ignorant of numerous things pertaining to Mount Fuji, the Balkan war, Fijian history, etc. (there's a rather long list), yet perfectly sound of mind.

    Think. You are patently, demonstratively wrong, whatever the state of your psyche.
  • Professor,
    Re: "Who are the peers for Creationists? Evolutionists have their peers
    review their studies, and when someone who is not in their community dares
    to submit they are rarely, if ever published. The same would be true of an
    Evolutionist submitting an article for peer review to an ID publication. Not
    only would it normally not be published, but these people are not there
    "peers.""

    If ID wants to be considered a science, using the scientific to arrive at
    scientific conclusions derived from the evidence found in nature, then it
    must submit its findings to the same professional publications every other
    science does for peer review. If ID wants to be considered science, its
    peers are scientists in the life sciences, not religious publications. Behe
    made great efforts to distance ID from religion. You seem to share my view
    that it's religion disguised as something else (not science, not theology,
    not sure what). If creationists think their beliefs are science, then they
    should be willing to submit their findings to the same peer reviewed
    publications. Note: I'm not referring to a creationist who publishes a paper
    on a topic that doesn't incorporate creationism. I'm talking about a
    scientific defense of the creationist/ID beliefs counterarguments to
    evolutionary theory.

    Re: "You are also ignorant of the fact that Evolutionists do refer to
    ourselves as Evolutionists. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a well published, well
    respected Biologist, even by Evolutionists, for example referred to himself
    often and in print as a Theistic Evolutionist"

    I said that evolutionist is a term used by theists and you countered by
    giving the example of a theist who calls himself a theistic evolutionist.(?)
    Thanks for substantiating my point. The point is that theists use
    "evolutionist" to equate acceptance of evolution and religious belief. They
    would also like to suggest that evolutionary scientists worship Darwin as
    some sort of deity. This is untrue and a poor attempt to raise religious
    belief to the same level as science as a means to view the natural world.
    Evolution has been amended hundreds of times since the death of Darwin, yet
    still remains the best conclusion science has reached that accounts for all
    the natural evidence. No doubt Darwin would be amazed at the "evolution" of
    his own theories if he were to read modern evolutionary theory.

    Re: "It's obvious you are smart, however you are ignorant"

    I don't deny being ignorant of many things. Yet the fact you raised this
    unrelated point in a discussion of an unrelated topic makes it appear you're
    either attempting to distract us from your arguments or trying to denigrate
    me, and by association, my arguments. That's a weak method of trying to
    prevail in a debate. If your opinions are persuasive enough, you don't need
    to make any comment on the person you're debating.
  • al
    It would be interesting to see what swedish people are like a generation from this decision, compared to people in communities that provide religious instruction.
  • Professor
    This decision, if truly reported, is grossly inappropriate. The primary difference between teaching faith based and atheistically based "science" is world view. All scientists whether ID, Creationists or evolutionists teach and study the same set of facts, but interpret them based upon their views. That statement is irrefutable. People of equal credentials, solidly trained and sufficiently intelligent argue over the interpretation of the same sets of facts. One should just admit, therefore, that there is not only one "intelligent" explanation for origin issues.

    Within all three movements there are those holding to various explanations, basically at odds with one another, yet those that face the most serious ridicule are those that subscribe to any reasonable alternative that includes acknowledgment of a god.

    As long as two people both accept the title "evolutionist" they can disagree on any number of particulars, even to the point of being polar opposites, without inflaming much passion. That's because, obviously, the real issue for most people is a desire to discount any god claims that may step on their concept of freedom.

    How infantile. No matter how loudly we scream "no," if the parent (God) says "yes" yes is still the correct answer.
  • Doris hater
    Doris you are a moron. I hope you get to read this. If you wrote all that non-sense just to see how many people respond then you got me. I just could not resist. Once again you are a moron.. THANKS!!! :)
  • John
    I think that sounds right, although this is obviously and atheist site so obviously their bias is coming in. I agree though that this shouldnt be taught as truth but as a truth claim in the religious studies classroom along with the truth claims of any view; atheism, forms of agnosticism, theism

    Just as evolution and science should only teach the facts an not push a presumption of athiesm or creationism
  • I agree, John. There's no direct correlation between science and atheism.
    Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods. The closest to that science
    gets is in basing their work on nature as opposed to the supernatural. Not
    all scientists are atheists and not all atheists accept the primacy of
    science.
  • John
    I'm Christian for the record ;) ^^^^^
  • Chess
    In my early years of high school a teacher, who happened to be a Catholic priest, wrote on the board a very interesting and valid distinction: Science=facts, Religion= faith.If one wants to believe in some almighty god/-s, they should do it in private, not at schools, not on the streets...either at home or in their temples(call it mosques, churches or whatever).I like this Swedish step.Congratulations.
  • n l hope
    We could do with those rules in every school. all religions have stores of wisdom and commom sense to offer , so by insisting on intelligent analysis, pupils will be able to parse out what is good and leave behind the wrong and cruel things we find in most all religions. The most obvious example in all religions is the second class place women are given in religion and culture. This is man made for sure.
  • Another Swedish Guy
    This is barely noticed here in Sweden, most of us are atheists anyway, the only people who will care are probably those schools affected, and there aren't many of those anyway.

    Something the government should do that would take a stand against superstition is to get rid of the incredibly studip law which makes citizens of Sweden automatically members of The Swedish Church, to which you pay some half percent of your income and is a real bitch to get out of.
  • D. Jean
    Quick way to eliminate this controversy: Get governments out of the school business. Let the market do its work.
    See how many top jobs, corporate positions, & graduate school selections dogmatists will get. Very few.

    Never doubt the free market.
  • Big Love
    Ooooo, top jobs and corporate positions! Exactly the example Jesus set. I believe the bible reads, in red letters, "Get as rich and powerful as you possibly can." It's just so insane.

    Sweden rocks in Deaf Education, too! It is illegal to deprive your child of a real language (by forcing them to try and lipread and speak when language is not accessible to them that route). It is considered brain damage. Deaf kids have a right to education their way. Awesome.

    a, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden!
    Ja, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden!
  • David Griffiths
    Absolutely wonderful, one step further to freeing children and later the adults they become from religious tyranny.
  • Good news, eventually the rest of all countries will follow.
  • Cheesedoff17
    This is truly wonderfull news. Vive La Suede!
  • kef2007
    I totally love the Swedes. Every Swedish person I know is free thinking and in no way wants to infrige on the rights of others. A total live and let live tendency, as long no one tells THEM how to live. They think Americans are uptight and just live to tell other people what to do (which I'm starting to think it true myself). Go Sweden and total equality.
  • D. Jean
    Agree, agree, agree. DISAGREE. Screw equality. Go total FREEDOM.

    Equality is generally the justification for the elimination of freedom.
  • Wes
    go team sweden!
  • Steve
    Haven't these fools been keeping up with the new science of Inteligent Design.Only a fool believes in Evolution these days with all the new discoveries with bioligy and such.Evolution is impossible after you realize how complex the living cell is .Even Darwin said himself if it could be proven that the body more complex than actually something coming from none living matter his Therory would collapse!!!
    I do not respect any one who holds on to thinking of a 18th century idea that has been outdated and dispoven over and over and over.Actually every time you open up a new jar of penut butter or spagetti sause you should be woried about something jumping out at you that was created by ther material within if evolution be true he,he,he.But God think that our idea of wisedom b e foolish to Him and I have to agree totally.All I know that maybe you came from a monkey but I was fashenned ater the Amighty God and my true father
  • All I can say about you Steve is that you are neither a product of evolution or intelligent design. You represent another completely new evolutionary strain populated only by you. I shall it Peanutbutteris Americanus.
  • D. Jean
    Surely you're joking, right. What with all of the spelling & grammatical errors, not to mention the discredited assertions (the peanut butter one never fails to make me laugh!), you must be a crazy atheist up to a bit of tomfoolery! Evangelical fundamentalists can't be this DUMB, can they?
  • Steve,
    I find it ironic someone who follows the teachings of first century goat herders would complain about people who accept a theory first proposed (and modified continuously since then) in the 18th century. That being said, there's plenty in your post that's plain wrong. Biology is based on evolution and recent findings in that field, at least those proposed by accredited scientists and submitted for peer review, support evolution as the best conclusion that accounts for all the evidence. Perhaps you can cite where evolution has been "disproven over and over...". You show no indication you understand the theory of evolution, so perhaps you should gain some understanding before attempting to post on the topic. When you can provide as much testable, verifiable and consistent evidence for your particular god as there is to support evolution as the accepted mechanism for changes within species, be sure to post it here first. I'd love to read it.
  • anon
    Excellent.

    It is the 21st century and about time we recognised religion as supernatural BS.

    America is constitutionally a secular nation and should be following Sweden's lead.

    However, it would be interesting to see f these laws are applied to all religions equally or just used as a tool for muslim-bashing.

    I am an environmental chemist and one of my colleagues has come out as a crationist. I laughed in his face, but then sadly realised he was'nt joking.

    Sad.
  • Me myself
    Mark,
    anybody can tell what is right and what is wrong in atheist society. Stop pretending that your collection of bullshit (also known as religion) has any monopoly on morality.
  • roel kerpel
    Finally,.
  • Isa
    Well done Sweden!
  • Mark
    Interesting that the Swedish Minister states that children "must be protected from all sorts of fundamentalism" and refuses families to pass on religious beliefs. It seems, however that this policy is rather biased towards secularism. the government is allowed to instill secular doctrine in pupils but families and private religious schools are unallowed to pass on their own religious doctrine. this seems unfair to me, but then, in an athiest society who can say what is right or wrong; fair or unfair?
  • I disagree, Mark.
    They are not promoting secularism. They're setting parameters on the presentation of religious dogma as fact in schools. They aren't advocating "their own religious doctrine", whatever that may be. Families can and will still pass along their values, beliefs and superstitions. The children don't live at school, nor do they accept as "gospel" what they learn in school. The beliefs of the parents will always have a greater impact.
  • joeboe
    yes!!!! i wish that was done in the US
  • RavenMek
    I'm a Theist, but this is SO GREAT. Religion must not be taught in school, you should learn rational and critical thinking in there. And then, when you can think by yourself, choose to be or not religious. Or spiritual, agnostic, atheist. Anything. But you choose.
  • Oneoldman
    At last an intelligent approach.
  • Mark
    Seems kind of extreme, but religious extremism is too dangerous to be taken lying down. Besides, teaching children to believe in mythology as truth is destructive and leaves them ill-equipped to handle the real world. Children of religious upbringing end up spending all their time staring at the sky and praying for the trumpets to sound and the rapture to begin -- rather than actually going out and living their lives.
  • Brilliant! Finally some sanity. In South Africa I still can't buy a bottle wine for a dinner part on Sunday because of some minorities ridiculous belief in a supernatural watchdog. Blind faith in the unknowable is the single biggest stumbling block to social evolution on our planet and it is high time that our leaders take a stand. Well done Sweden!
  • I like Christians though, they taste like chicken.
  • Brad
    Why are private schools being dictated by the government? I heard also that churches in sweden cannot preach against homosexuality or the preacher will go to prison for hate speech. Why does a country with a cross on their flag hate anything to do with religion? It's almost like they are scared and feel threatened by it.
  • smildion
    Because the private schools still teach children and there is no reason to make those children have a handicapped the rest of their lives. And your ridiculous statement about preaching isn't even worthy of a response because you should know better. A preacher was arrested at the behest of his followers because he called for the killing of homosexuals I would hope the same would happen in America.
  • So if you have a religious education you are handicapped? Oh yeah, nice point of view :)
    I think everyone jumped the gun a little. Not sure how it is in Sweden, but when i was in school (Romania) we had one hour of religion every week . Oh my, i can see why i am so handicapped (or handicapable ) right now.
    Anyway, this is pretty much bulls**t. I was raised in a religious environment. At home especially. Also studied religion in school. When i was 10 years old i cried for about an hour because i realised that there may not be a God after all. If anyone is gonna decide if it is worth it to believe or not, they will do that much later than school.
    What i consider to be a VERY BAD thing is the fact that for me, the esential, fundamental notions of bad and good were in fact established by the "religion" in my life. What if we turn "If you kill someone you go to hell and burn there for eternity" into "Killing another person is bad because it breaks the law, and if catched, you might go to prison. Oh, and also you are breaking his individual right to live". We are talking about kids, remember? Which one do you think has a bigger effect?
    Also for everyone who is a "fundamentalist theist", remember that most people are idiots ;)
    Again, I am not a religious person
  • How about instead of instilling fear of eternal punishment (a highly
    unlikely scenario), we instead teach values that create a positive
    inducement for good behavior? Fear, especially of an intangible punishment,
    is a poor means of assuring proper social behaviors. Since there is no
    evidence that a "hell" exists it's a weak argument.
  • to find the answer to this you must take a better look at human nature ;)
  • Can I mode to Sweden? Please? Pretty please?
  • William
    I live in Australia... I'm moving to Sweden for my child's education!

    Best. Law. Ever.
  • I hate the fact that I hate the cold, otherwise I'd be off to Sweden so fast. Every time I read or hear about Sweden It's about something intelligent.

    I would right off Doris' comment as trolling, It's certainly the sort of comment that would annoy thinkers, and frankly there would be no point attempting a rational discourse with someone who actually believed what she wrote so ignore her.

    @ Iftikhar
    "Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents." You're kidding, Right? Please tell me you don't believe the average parent, Muslim or not, should be in control of what their children learn. The average parent has no clue how to raise a child well let alone educate one properly. You have made the same mistake most religious people do when writing on a free-thinkers blog, assuming we hate your religion, most of us don't, we dislike ALL religion.

    @ Gamut
    "i loathe the suggestion that kids should be indoctrinated with the majority view by force" You miss the point. The kids will be guaranteed not to be indoctrinated into anything by the schools.
  • Catholic (but a sane one)
    !

    OK, I'm moving to Sweden. That is the place to rise one's children. Respect.
  • Gina
    I think this is a gross violation of rights, actually. If the government wants to tell people what can be done in public schools, that's fine. It's their money. But when parents are paying their own money and the school gets private funding, the school has every right to teach whatever curriculum they want.

    Their is secular fundementalism too.
  • smildion
    Violation of what the right to ignorance? As was mentioned before some very prominent universities don't accept faith based science curriculum. So you would have a child's choice at college be limited by the small mindedness of their parents. Wow I hope you don't do this to your children.
  • Eh
    Science requires a significant leap of faith...trust in empiricism.
  • Sumo
    Great. I hope the idea spreads through the rest of Europe. Now if only we can get the Swedish government to ask the MPA and RIAA for proof that the malarkey they are spouting is true.
  • eaton
    My only reservation would be the precedent that it sets, that the state involves itself in voluntary, private institutions (acknowledging that the 'voluntary' part is a stretch when children are involved). A government that can prohibit religion can also mandate it, or some other creed, or point of view, or damn near anything else it wants. Right now the criterion is scientific evidence, but I am cynical enough to expect this to be jettisoned as soon as is expedient.

    I'd prefer retaining the freedom from coercion, even if it means some ideas I find abhorrent are given undue weight. The space to think freely means that some will abuse it. The last thing I want is fascist freethinking...
  • Someone on Stumbleupon left a comment that was simply, "Free speech anyone?"

    My response to that was this: It shouldn't be considered "free speech" to disseminate information that has no (or negative) truth value. If I start a school which teaches: the Holocaust didn't happen, the Earth is flat, and women are inferior to men in all ways except childbirth and cooking -would this be protected education under free speech. Superstition has no place in any institution that wants to lay claim to being one of education. QED.
  • Andrei
    Truth is dictated by the victors and it has always been so.

    On the matter of religion, there are no new arguments here, just a novel approach.

    IMHO, faith is a way of life and religion (notice the difference) has no place in the curriculum. What do they score them on, anyway, the pints of blood from stigmata wound? This would be Advanced Religious practices I guess.
  • proudearthling
    jeber,

    Can you "substantiate" that this is not all just a grand illusion? Faith is the ground. There is no knowledge without first relying on faith.
  • proudearthling,
    "Faith" is belief without evidence. Faith precedes knowledge. Once a person obtains knowledge, faith is no longer required. Once I know something, I no longer have to guess.
  • proudearthling
    jeber,

    Yes I agree that once you have knowledge of a thing you no longer have faith in that thing. So do you have knowledge that this is not all just an illusion? If not then isn't all the knowledge you have predicated on your faith in the reality of your perceptions?
  • Blackbird
    maybe we will never know that this world is an illusion or not. It's like believing in the invisible pink unicorn. is it there? is it not? Why the hell is it pink? you have faith but is there any logic in your faith. just what can happen in an illusion? we have a preconceived idea that anything can happen. Do we really know that? if so tell me why.
    logical faiths are valid arguments, but illogical faiths like the world being created in 7 days are not. If this is an illusion we can observe it and use logic we have to identify what it is like.
  • Blackbird,

    To function, logic must presuppose its own validity. There is no logical ground for that presupposition. And for "presuppose" in that first sentence, one may very well read "requires unsubstantiated faith in".

    But, that aside, there is quite a lot of sound philosophical reasoning suggesting that our ordinary everyday perceptions are at least illusory in some important ways.

    All in all, I think it's a good idea to encourage caution in teaching notions as though they are inviolable truths. But then we must take that principle to heart. Even logic is unsubstantiated in the essence of things, and to miss that by an inch is to miss it by a mile.
  • mel
    Can I move to Sweden?

    my country is full of idiots.
  • "It’s good to see a few governments brave enough to take a stand against supernatural thinking"

    I don't know where you're from, but here in the UK, our government is itself riddled with cloud--pixie worshippers.

    It's good to see that Sweden at least appears to have a more rational basis for their government.
  • doG
    Yay Sweden is now my #2 choice to move to after i retire just behind australia.
  • d.hillcrest
    OOOppppps to my first sentence

    I think there is confusion here as to an apparent feeling that Religion has been completely banned in Sweden.
  • d.hillcrest
    I think there is confusion here as to an apparent feeling that Religion completely. It hasn't - it has just stopped it being taught as fact and parents are free to exercise their own religious indoctrination in the comfort of their own home and at their own expense.

    Some people think this is forcing children 'to listen to someone else's viewpoint'. This is a spurious assertion at best. Our children have always been taught someone else's viewpoint. They're children - they don't have a viewpoint until we give them one. That's why they go to school. The Swedish government has made the sensible decision that the viewpoint they receive is one based in science (specifically in regard to ID), where the contention over the validity of the curriculum they are taught has been minimised as it can be validated and proven to be correct to the best of our ability. It allows the children to be taught a curriculum that cherishes scientific and historical enquiry in a meaningful context without losing time to areas that are opinion based and/or personal to an individual. They still have all Sunday to pursue their extra-curriculum fairy-tale study so I fail to see how this would diminish their ability to ascend to the mother ship as and when the time arises.

    Those who are vain enough to think their viewpoint is the 'best' are free to homeschool their children.

    Incidentally, I teach in a CofE school but refuse to describe any religious anecdote as true. I fid myself tor in this respect ad would love the whole system to be tor down in the UK. It is an insult to us as a nation that we still mix religion and education as if they were in any way connected. We should be smarter than this by now.
  • Troy
    Kinda surprising, but considering that colleges don't always accept faith-based science curriculums as legit, this makes sense if the government wants to make sure kids get a good education.
  • Aor
    Education is all about changing what your children think. Even use of force is justifiable, provided the point you are trying to teach is important enough, such as don't choke your little sister to death at the breakfast table. Since utter certainty is impossible, we must go with the best science has to offer with as little influence from those who believe in utter certainty as possible, whatever their reason.. religion, politics, sex, whatever. We have a great responsibility to tell the truth to the next generation.
  • Gamut
    It's also ever so slightly ironic and hypocritical to be lauding the passing of a law that forces people to listen to someone else's viewpoint on a website devoted to liberty of thought. Shouldn't any kind of indoctrination be avoided with that goal in mind?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a deterministic atheist realist, but this sort of contradiction really irks me about those inclined toward 'government imposed' freedom.
  • B.G
    Once theists can bring any good evidence that isn't completely faith based then we can talk. It's not like by this we're promoting atheism, we're promoting science which although they have a common tie (reasoning skills) aren't the same. I compare this law to one stating it is illegal for schools to teach that bananas are the only food source.
  • Gamut,
    I don't laud the passing of a law that forces people to listen to someone else's viewpoint. I applaud the passing of a law that prevents religion from being presented as fact in schools. My opinion as to the validity of religion isn't the issue, rather the issue is the inability of any theist group to provide credible evidence that supports the contention they make that gods exist. Without verifiable evidence there can be no "fact", no "ultimate truth". At least not in the world outside religious faith.
    I don't endorse any suppression of information, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, knowledge should be presented accurately; science as our best conclusion based on observed evidence (or predictions based on the same criteria) and religion as a product of faith, accepted without evidence. Religion cannot, and should not, be taught as fact.
    Now one portion of the law I don't agree with is the prohibition of teaching religion as fact in strictly religious schools. If the practice of religion is legal within an otherwise secular country, I don't see where the government has a right to control what's taught in private schools, paid for by alumni and not supported with public funding. If the people who send their kids to those schools intend that their children be taught mythology and fantasy as fact, that's their privilege. Their children will most likely suffer for being education in superstition later in life, and a secular humanist would likely consider this as child abuse. Still, parents, not the state, should determine where and how their children are educated. As long as religious schools are privately funded, I don't think the public has any place to determine their curriculum.
  • Gamut
    Well, at least on the later part I'm in complete agreement, and you have to admit that the revelation in this article was not that science has to be taught as fact in public schools, but it was, indeed, that this requirement is now forced upon religious private schools as well.

    My point is, though I agree with your assessment of factual knowledge, that is doesn't matter all that much what is generally regarded as truth when it comes to individual choices about teaching. For the same reason -- though this is an argument that does not sit well with most people -- I am firmly opposed to forcing children into medical treatments that both they and their parents oppose (for religious reasons or otherwise). They are all looking out for their own best interests -- and if they really believe, as was the case around where I live, that the treatment will lead to 'eternal damnation of their children's souls' -- who are we to be the executors? And the argument is still the same -- what if the local (or federal) medical community decided that an obviously horrid, painful, and (unfortunately) ultimately useless treatment was the right course of action. And everyone who refused it for their dying children was dragged in front of a judge, humiliated, and then forced to administer it anyway. The problem is not with the intent, but with the consequences when the intent does not match up well with unanticipated circumstances. All of these humanist policies are great so long as they're passed by the majority and you're one of them.

    The bigger problem I see, is that the law of unintended consequences is probably going to be a strong determinant of outcomes in this case. When religious groups become singled out, as they seem so have been, they don't seem to go away, they go underground and militarise.
  • The Swedish Guy
    I just wanna say some of the things I told "Doris" to you as well:

    "Doris,

    So beutiful of you to use "the age of freedom" as it would give strengh to your argument, and claiming "Sweden sounds like they are becoming a bit communistic". Please spare me this thoughts. I mean if you like freedom so much, why do you then want institutions where parents can put their children and be teached what the parents want. That ignores the children to 100%, they kids don't get a change to think for themeselves if someones tell them "The earth was created in seven days, that's the way it is!"

    If you tell them "The most belivable theory on how the earth was created is...." Know you're teaching out science (based on evidence). Only know the kid can think for himself/herself, he/she has to see and understand the logik in "why" it occured as it did, and they have a change to be critical.

    And there it is Doris, freedom can now continue to live. Instead of being cut of by many religious schools, a non-selfcritical fenoma, wich stops development." - end of qoute.
  • Gamut
    Yes, I have a great responsibility to teach my kids all of these things ,but tou don't have any to teach mine. And if I don't agree with you on something, my view trumps yours with my kids. Period. They can make the choice of view when they grow up, but to force me to give them up to hear yours is disturbing at the very least. Especially if I find it morally reprehensible -- like theist do of atheists. Just image it was the other way around, and the majority decided evolution was false, and banned it, and forced you to send your kids to school to hear all about divine creation.

    Or, for (random and completely out of the blue) example, if the majority thought that, say, Jews were inferior, and laws already existed to force kids to go to state monitored schools and hear the majority view as fact. I know this is allegorical, and it's not the case now, but kids don't just learn science in school; They learn politics as well, and supervision of the curriculum of one of these topics is unjustifiably singled out for scrutiny above all others. The only way to prevent that kind of bias, and to guarantee that people can't be forced to listen to it, is not to pass such totalitarian laws. It's a dangerous state of affairs when the majority gets 100% their way -- history has shown minorities get trampled in those kinds of situations. Not to mention that this typically leads to fanaticism on one side, and an escalation of repression on the other. Read German history prior to WWII if you need a refresher. It's really disturbing to hear how the curriculum was manipulated by the majority view to 'enlighten' and 'educate' those unfortunate members of society who were backward enough to believe something else.
  • B.G
    only problem is that this isn't how it is. In school it shouldn't be allowed to teach anything without significant evidence and even then make sure the children know there are alternatives. By no means is that forcing someone's beliefs on your child. What it seems to me you seem scared of is that if your child gets to hear a different viewpoint and "God forbid" make their own choice on the matter. Kids shouldn't be forced to take on the belief of their parents, even if it's only until they leave the house. It's already been said in a perfect world kids would see all points of view and all evidence and make their own decision. The closest you're going to get is school and adding a religious tilt to it completely destroys that as that one religion will be taught as complete fact.
  • appa
    Eeeexcellent. I will now move to Sweden just for that.
  • Gamut
    This is going a little far. There's no difference between banning parents from teaching their kids what they want, and making it illegal not to send them to schools where they don't get te choice. I'm no theist, by any stretch, but i loathe the suggestion that kids should be indoctrinated with the majority view by force. What if the majority thought stealing was right (oh, wait, they do), or that abortion is wrong, or any other belief I don't agree with, and decided to make it 'compulsory curriculum'.

    As a parent, i hate the notion that others feel an obligation to teach my children, and place their beliefs as superior to mine -- everyone thinks their beliefs are factual anyway. And science, despite the rhetoric, is not fact, it's theory; or at least it's supposed to be. I don't care if someone else's kids think the spaghetti monster is real, or god exists, or that there are political solutions to economic problems; but only because I certainly don't want them to try to alter what my kids think by force.
  • Andrew Wilson
    No one is forcing your kids into believeing anything. And that's the point. religious schools are.

    Non-religious schools teach kids to look at the evidence and think for themselves.
  • Blackbird
    The problem is children should have the right to decide their religion or position without outside influence. However this does not happen. Why? Parents. Parents tend to bring up their children with their own beliefs. If children were brought up without any knowledge of religion or were brought up to hold all in equal probablility or validity, and then choose. The world may be a better place. Perhaps religion would die out. Perhaps it would thrive. Either way there would be no reason for complaint or need to teach creationism etc. Science should be taught, however. Science is not a religion or a faith. It is analysis of the world using probability and logic. It should be considered as the logic route rather than a possible belief. Science is not the same as religion and should be classified so.
  • Tukulti-Ninurta II
    Thank you, Sweden, for explaining to the rest of the world why it makes no sense to teach opinion as scientific fact.
  • dave
    at last a country with enough foresight and strength to take a stand.
    WELL DONE SWEDEN.
  • The other Swedish guy
    Thanks. we try! And oh, buy stuff from IKEA, get SAAB's or Volvo's and last, but defenitely not least, remember to thank us swedes everytime you close your zipper!


    (P.S In case anyone didn't get that, a swede invented th zipper)
  • Muslim Youths

    Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers. They face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the role of women in the society, and adherence to religious and cultural traditions. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters. There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Than little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.

    The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim teacher or a child in a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.

    Majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim
    culture--the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as a western community, not as an alien culture.
    Iftikhar Ahmad
    www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
  • Angie
    I can see how they arrived at this law. Regardless of private or secular, the school seems to have the child's best interest in mind. That is the government wants to make sure that regardless of institution, children will not be taught falsehoods as fact. The law seems to uphold the goal of schooling to educate people.
  • Captain Howdy
    ...and the sooner you people get to your "comfort zone", the better. Typical victim mentality - you want it your way, or no way.
  • Akita Mata
    "The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children."

    I, after nearly 30 years as teacher and pedagogist, have never comer across this right of education in "one's own comfort zone" and such concepts are simply a matter of confusion. Education means learning things that one does not already know, ergo, education is strongly tied to the unknown. The unknown is hardly comfortable. Further, learning requires effort; effort is hardly synonymous with comfort. Perhaps you should reconsider your statement. It
    postulates a right that you cannot substantiate. Finally, the education policies of the state are discriminatory because they are constituted to remove the extreme (and consequently the unsupported) opinions of anti-thetical and/or antagonistic social and cultural groups.
  • asads
    If you can't consolidate your personal beliefs with the general beliefs of British society - there's a simple solution. Move to somewhere where you can or send you kids to a foreign school. It also helps if you can speak the language of the country that you live in.
    Why do you want to live here if it's such a terrible place.
    I'm sick of people cowtowing to people because of their religion - it's all just a load of bollocks, I'm perfectly happy for you to believe in whatever the hell you want, but don't tell me we should have muslim schools with all non-muslim teachers and kids in them - way to bring people together.
    People in this country need to get some balls and tell fuckers like you where to stick it - not to mention all the little chavs. Society needs to stand up for itself and make people realise that we won't be intimidated by some religious nut or some kid in a hoodie.
    P.S. I went to a CoE school and i agree that religion has no place in factual education.

    in summary people can believe anything they want on a personal level, but don't inflict your views on others too stupid / immature to make a valid opinion.
  • Anonymous
    All that is as may be, but none of these cultural conflicts have any bearing on the fact that religious discussion has no place in the scientific community, period.
  • Joseph Baker
    There is no evidence that "holy spirit energy" exists. Also no evidence of "negative energy". Energy is just energy, and a person cannot use some sort of energy to change their own genes once those genes have been established.
  • Doris Tracey
    Sweden sounds like they are becoming a bit communistic and that will not do in the age of Freedom. Religion is the ultimate science when applied to one self. The only energy that can change negative energy is pure Holy Spirit energy. It is a transforming power from within. Even the genes of people can be changed.
  • Captain Howdy
    "The only energy that can change negative energy is pure Holy Spirit energy" - is that an advertisement for a new soft drink?

    You C*nt.
  • Andrew Wilson
    As was said in the blog, in different words, come up with as much repeatable eveidence for "Holy Spirit Energy" and the "Negative Energy" you speak of, as there exists for gravity, evolution etc... and then we can talk.
  • spud
    WHAT????? Did you go to school on one of those "special" buses?
  • Stabby
    Shut up Doris, your talking shit again. "Religion is the ultimate science when applied to one self. The only energy that can change negative energy is pure Holy Spirit energy. It is a transforming power from within. Even the genes of people can be changed." I'll believe you when you show me this energy heal an amputee.
  • Stabby
    I'm sick of people tiptoeing around beliefs. Death is the big elephant in the room no-one talks about instead it is wished away in a sea of fantasy to appease our child like psyches. I think it is safe to say that not a single person who truly believes the judeo-christian bible (all of its versions - what is that anyway, versions)

    Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

    Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

    The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

    I don't see widespread killing of hard working citizens who work on Sunday (i thought the sabbath was Saturday). I am also pretty sure that there is atleast one person in every town in the world who worships other gods or the sun or the moon - all of which are punishable by death (in some cases, the whole town?). As these "holy acts" of killing are not being committed one can only assume that no one believes in the bible. Atleast some muslims actually believe the book - no matter how misguided they are.

    Assuming that any of the monotheistic systems are correct, it means that all others are wrong.

    Can you imagine a world were overnight a sudden wave of reason swept over everyone and they woke up realizing that religion is false. Imagine the shit we can get done.

    Imagine there's no countries, no religion try. I wonder if you can. It's not hard if you try.

    Seriously, bill hicks and george carling should be made compulsory material in all schools - then you would see some significant change.
  • Geo
    The only answer you deserve is "Moron." Sorry, but that's just how it is.
  • joeboe
    sweden is socialist democratic, they country is better then the US can ever be
  • The Swedish Guy
    Doris,

    So beutiful of you to use "the age of freedom" as it would give strengh to your argument, and claiming "Sweden sounds like they are becoming a bit communistic". Please spare me this thoughts. I mean if you like freedom so much, why do you then want institutions where parents can put their children and be teached what the parents want. That ignores the children to 100%, they kids don't get a change to think for themeselves if someones tell them "The earth was created in seven days, that's the way it is!"

    If you tell them "The most belivable theory on how the earth was created is...." Know you're teaching out science (based on evidence). Only know the kid can think for himself/herself, he/she has to see and understand the logik in "why" it occured as it did, and they have a change to be critical.

    And there it is Doris, freedom can now continue to live. Instead of being cut of by many religious schools, a non-selfcritical fenoma, wich stops development.

    I also want to reply on the "communist-talk". Sweden has right now the most right-winged gouverment in many years (I know thou I live in Sweden), and sadly they are taking steps towards USA-politics. So don't worry we are nor communists. I've just got the feeling that everytime someone in the world makes something that doesen't agrees with the white house standards, there is always people saying "communists". As if America would be perfect.
    I don't know who they are, but they should catch up the latest news and stop living in the past. They should try to develop!

    Thanks
  • Tiia
    I agree with you there. I think this is completely right. Children can maintain a faith at home, but faith should not interfere with hard facts. I'm glad that Scandinavian countries in general are taking this direction, being from Finland myself, so I should know.

    A communistic "development" is by no means the result of this, it is merely the want of governments and schools to teach one curriculum, thus excluding ID. Since all children should be educated with the same quote in mind, it is no wonder that this applies to Christian schools also. It's not that prayer "doesn't mean anything", it's that prayer is to be kept separated from what is internationally considered to be true.

    So, jag instämm med dig :)
  • Doris,

    I always enjoy having my opinions challenged and being made to think. Unfortunately your comment reiterates old, worn-out theistic silliness without providing an iota of original thought.

    Sweden is hardly becoming communistic by prohibiting religion from being taught in schools as fact any more than the fact that there are collective farms in the U.S. is a sign we're becoming communistic.

    Science is antithetic to religion, religion does not become science regardless of how it's applied. Science examines evidence to arrive at a "best explanation" conclusion. Religion starts with an "absolute truth" then attempts to find evidence that can be made to appear to support religion's predetermined conclusion. Science and religion look at reality from opposite presuppositions. Science presupposes that reality is natural and discoverable. Religion presupposes that a particular reality exists in addition to our natural reality that is supernatural and undiscoverable.

    Take any vetted scientific claim and ask someone professing an expertize in that subject to "prove it" (note: there's a difference between proof, and theory, in science, so it would be more precise to ask them to "substantiate" their claim). They will either be able to do so or they are frauds. Now, take any well-accepted religious claim (e.g. creation, the existence of a god, resurrection, the holy spirit) and ask those professing an expertise in that subject to substantiate their claims. They can't. That's why faith exists and why the Bible, and other holy books I'm sure, define faith as belief without evidence.

    Science=evidence
    Faith=no evidence
    Science=/=Faith

    So, can you substantiate the claim that "Holy Spirit energy" (needs defining) can change genes?
blog comments powered by Disqus