Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true
Thu, 03/06/2008 - 16:33 — Atheion
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.
In the background to these announcements comes the release of a frightening documentary film on Swedish jihadis, which follows young men over a period of two years on their slow conversion to homicidal lunacy.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
How does Sweden manage to rock so hard?
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
I just keep finding more reasons to move to Sweden. It's great that they recognize that religion and science come from completely different ways of thinking.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
Sweden wins again.
Go Sweden! I really must move to Scandinavia.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
Sweden rocks this time.. but remember, it's not that black and white. You can still be taken from the street to drug tests if you look 'suspicious'.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
were ever did you hear that?
RE:
Ok, so some one please correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought that a Secular government was one that held no affiliation with any godly world view but by separating the state from the church , still allowed those who wished to explore a particular philosophy the freedom to do so in their spare time. What Sweden has done is chosen to become an atheistic government, and by implementing the above policy has tainted its self with a streak of totalitarianism. Its not hard to imagine that from here the next step would easily be to ban all religious schools altogether and then shortly after that to implement the Dawkins policy and dictate what values parents were allowed to teach their kids. Essentially moving from a stance of religious freedom to religious discrimination. I find discrimination of ANY type a worry since it is easy for a small seed of discrimination to eventually grow in to something vile.
RE: anti religious laws in Sweeden
It seems that these laws are not intended to be anti religious. Rather that they are aimed at stopping the indoctirnation of Muslim youth which is turning them into fanatical, suicidal, maniacs! This is evidenced by the fact that the Christian organizations are not against the law. But, IMHO, they are misguided. Even if we agree to cast the Islamic fundamentalists, who support terrorism, in the role of the devil, here is what Sir Thomas More has to say in "A Man for all Seasons" (More speaks second):
-Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
-Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?
-Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
-And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...
...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted with laws from coast to coast...
...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...
...and you're just the man to do it...
...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?
-Yes.
-I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
RE:
Dawkins has not said that it should be forbidden for parents to teach their children religious values, what he is against is _labeling_ a child as being of a particular faith, before it has even had a chance to reason and chose by itself. I.e. the specific act of labelling a child as being of a certain faith, not teaching it to be of a certain faith (so that that child can later chose for himself if he actually is of that faith).
Look at his appearance on BBC's Hard Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSatukeQzFM&feature=related.
At about 3:52 into this video Richard Dawkins states exactly this: "I do think it's wicked specifically to label children. I have never said
that it is wicked to bring children up in a particular belief, of course children are going to learn from their parents." This shows your statement, and also the statement in the above article, about what Richard Dawkins advocates, to be false and baseless. He specifically say that he does _not_ think it is wicked that parents teach their children about their faith. Check your facts.
no.
seperation from theology is not discrimination. It is objective. Nobody is theatening that someone must stop their religious dogma in their own home. It must simply be kept far away from education. Educatation is based on facts, and proven theorem not fantasy. Nobody should be deluded by their parent's values.
RE:
"by implementing the above policy has tainted its self with a streak of totalitarianism."
No. what they have done is ban the telling of fairytales as if they where based on fact. The move makes perfect sence. If schools where teaching your children that Peter pan really was a boy that never grew up and there IS a land called neverland and children CAN fly with pixie dust and happy thoughts you would have pulled your child out of that school and would demand the school be shut down.
I see no reason why teaching religion as if it where based on facts is any different.
"Its not hard to imagine that from here the next step would easily be to ban all religious schools altogether"
That is exactly what should be done. Telling someone that they must live there life according to what it says in some book written by many different parties over hundreds of years and has no basis in reality what so ever is a crime in it self.
Religious freedom can be maintained by allowing the faiths to have there churches and services.
The community and parents should not be allowed to force there religious beliefs on children in any way shape or form.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
I mean maybe I don't know how anybody else feels, but it seems kind of wrong that even the private religious schools can't even teach in this manner. If you're studying at one of said schools, wouldn't you already believe the doctrine as faith already anyway?
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
Atheism is also a point of view that cannot be proven nor disproved, just like faith-based beliefs. Why do people insist there is a distinction? As well, are they going to be teaching theoretical science as truth? Evolution is theoretical; it is not proven science. Where do they draw the line? And how do they know that they have drawn it in the right place?
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
@Drukus
While I am an Atheist, I'm not against people believing in what they want, and I do not actively seek out people to teach them my views. However, even if I did, how would that be the same as religion? If someone tells me something I don't believe in, how can I be put into the same category as said person. If someone told me that they saw a flock of elephants flying into the sunset, how could I disprove it, and why should I? In my world, if you make a claim, you should be able to prove it, not the other way around.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
In a way atheists can be compared to religious people, in the sense that most of them don't believe in a lot of gods, but you just don't believe in 1 more than they do :P
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
Evolution by the way is proven science. :) You gave me good laughs.
I wish this kind of system would come to Finland also.
Yeah Sweden rocks.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
Um. Evolution is a fact. It's not a theory.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
Drukus, that assertion is incorrect. Read up on Russell's Teapot: you are basically stating that religion can not be disproven - but of course that which is unobservable cannot by definition be proved or disproved. Following your line of thinking, I can claim there is a race of purple leprechauns living at the center of the earth, and since they can't be disproved, then that claim has as much weight as any other ideas.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
Atheism is not a point of view in the same class as those of religions in that atheism is not obligated to prove its premise -- that only things that can be factually verified through rigorous scientific standards of proof are to be declared "real" or "truthful". Atheism is not a negation of god, but an affirmation that people should not believe or in this case, teach unproven and/or supernatural concepts as reality.
The onus is on the religious to confirm the existance of their god(s) through universally accepted and reproducable methods. The existance of god has been disproven in many ways already. The negation of god(s)' existance is, unfortunately for the religious, the side effect of rational and reasonable thought applied to the known and proven facts about life on earth. Atheism is just the realization of this -- the party after god's funeral, so to speak.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
On evolution, it is wholly supported and partially proven by empirical experiments. For example, Richard Lenski's experiment involving e-coli bacteria.
A small article about his experiments.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evo...
Whereas on the most frequently argued for contender, the Christian creation story, there has been presented no evidence or even circumstantial evidence. Most arguments you will see for creation are poorly thought out ramblings about some error on evolution's part. And the kicker, even if there would be irrefutable evidence presented to disprove evolution, it does not mean that creationism is correct.
In other words disproving what the opposition is saying does not grant you a free win. Imagine yourself in a discussion with someone claiming that coconuts are made of chocolate, you can easily disprove their claim, but doing so does not merit any evidence for your claim that coconuts are made from rocks and snow.
And as for Atheism being disprovable? "All" that would take is proof of one or more divine beings. And remember, disproving or attempting to disprove your competition does not prove that you are the one in the right.
See where im getting at?
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
Common Sense is a good starting point. How come it is so hard for you to see the difference between wanting some proof (atheism) and mere faith?
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. - Christopher Hitchens
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
just like faith-based beliefs ... What absolute rubbish ! ! !
You might convince other religious converts with your stupid, ill-informed observations Drukus, but thinking people will see them for what they are. Plain old un-provable religious dogma. We've heard it all a million times before.
Faith is often (correctly) defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. How then, can the atheist position of REQUIRING proof be considered faith-based. I am an atheist because I don't accept your proof of any gods' existence, which is nothing like a faith-based belief. Show me some empirical evidence and tangible proof and I'll believe you. You, on the other hand, do not require any proof. Right or wrong, you just accept what you're taught by family and clergy. THAT is why people insist there is a distinction.
Science is based on evidence and is the best we've got. Unlike religion, it doesn't claim to be perfect. The science of two thousand years ago is very different to modern science. It has progressed as more evidence and data became available, whereas you're still stuck in the past, playing the same old tune over and over. Anything taught as science has evidence, logic and reason to support it. What has religion got? Nothing but feverish fabrication of fear, fantasy, fallacy and false fables.
Here is a real life question for you, Drukus... If you had a dangerously ill loved one in a hospital bed, would you want some religious nut exorcising evil spirits from them, or would you want to have the best available medical science at their disposal? Most people would choose modern medicine. Sure, there are many diseases that can't be cured yet, but if prayer worked, we would have no need of hospitals.
Put your thinking cap on, Drukus. Start thinking for yourself and you'll come back to the same atheist position that you were born with, before you were taught otherwise.
Congratulations to Sweden! This action provides further protection of the human rights of the child, enabling a wider world view and discernment of what is fact and what is fantasy.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal...
Here is a real life question for you, Drukus... If you had a dangerously ill loved one in a hospital bed, would you want some religious nut exorcising evil spirits from them, or would you want to have the best available medical science at their disposal? Most people would choose modern medicine. Sure, there are many diseases that can't be cured yet, but if prayer worked, we would have no need of hospitals.
A Christian would not have an exorcist trying to cast out demons, you seem to think Christians are simply unthinking Neanderthals, who have no idea about science. A Christian would want the best available medical science, and there prayers would be that God help them get that. And prayer does in fact work, it works to help people get the medical help they need, and to provide finances to pay for it. You can stand there and shout your blind accusations that Christians are fools who believe on blind faith. But then again, your belief in the non existence of God requires quite a bit of faith to. You can say it's the lack of faith all you want, but Atheism is a belief, a belief that there is no God, therefore, it is religion. Agnostics have no religion, but Atheists believe in atheism.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal [snipped]
Drukus,
Evolution is as proven as gravity. You can choose to ignore the mountains of evidence if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that as a theory, evolution is one of the most supported in scientific terms. Gaps in knowledge are just that; and not invitations to be filled in with guesswork or fairy tales.
As far as Atheism being an unprovable philosophy and therefor akin to a religion, understand that Atheism, whether Strong, Weak, or bordering on Agnosticism, is a default position in terms of a belief structure. In other words, it's the absence of foundational claims. Therefore it doesn't and can't act as a religion. For those that do attempt to treat it as such, they are contradicting the whole point of Atheism.
Having said all of that, secular governments should only concern themselves with teaching things that are rooted in the natural world. Facts should dictate the discussion. Truths, on the other hand, should only be discussed in churches or philosophy class. Science should not and can not be concerned with such things. They'll only muddy the waters.
couple long thoughts
1) The separation of church and state in the education system.
The problem with religious schools is ultimately the students have to leave said school and enter into general society where they have to be able to function. Many states in the US Midwest where religious doctrine is taught in place of science are sadly not able to keep up. They have not be taught logic or critical analysis.
As a side note, if you really want to have a separation of church and state then churches should have to pay taxes in full.
2) Governmental rights.
We have all accepted on this discussion that the government is well within it's rights to demand that it's people go to school so that it's citizens may be a benefit rather then a burden. With this in mind, since schooling is a state required function you should have to deal with state requirements. You want to learn religious materials....... it's called church. But you don't get to pretend that church time is school time.
Obviously any action to stop people from going to a church on their own time (not school time or time they are being paid with tax money to work) would be rather wrong of the government. They simply should not have the right to restrict what people want to believe on their own time. Nor should parents be forbidden to teach their children about religion. But with regards to "home schooling" I believe California was correct in demanding that the "teacher" have state accreditation as a teacher and that the curriculum must pass state requirements. You should not be allowed to be ignorant of what everyone else has to learn in order to function in this complex world. If you wish to supplement your education above and beyond with a philosophy course where the truth of all believes is argued that's fine. If you wish to go to church on your own time to supplement what you perceive as a spiritual void in secular teachings please feel free. But this supplementing should not replace required skill sets and knowledge sets (you may feel free to argue the validity but most "religious schools" don't even begin to cover the science correctly and then destroy the straw man they have created with whatever their particular religious text is), nor should it be on "school time", just like football (which while joked about really is it's own brand of religion in Texas).
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal
Restricting freedom doesn't "rock so hard". Its fascism.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal
I agree. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right.
In my opinion, teaching religion as truth should be excluded from publicly funded schools, but disallowing it in private institutions is a horrible civil rights violation - not that Sweden seems to care lately.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal
We restrict freedoms all the time. Laws against taking other peoples things are a restriction of freedom but we accept it because taking other people's things is unpleasant. As is being taught that fairy tales are true.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal
A fairy tail like say shapeshifting animals that turn into humans through there generations. And matter that has always existed despite the natural law of cause and effect?
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
BUT, i bet you, they do not have a foreclosure problem!
Good for Sweden
"faith-based beliefs" are points-of-view? If religion is just a "point-of-view" then laws like this make perfect sense. Or are you saying that atheism is a religion? Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Humans have an amazing ability to easily see how others beliefs are false, but become quite disturbed when their own beliefs are lump together with all others. Living in isolated societies has sheltered most people from this disturbing experience. But as the people of the world have more experience of each other it becomes clear that others beliefs, especially ancient ones, are pretty clearly false. Guess what ... yours are too.
Re: Good for Sweden
Well said, Paul.
Re: Ian
Ian: They do not restrict the freedom of people to teach their children religion outside of school. They do also not restrict the freedom to go to sunday school or their muslim or jewish equivalents. They don't even abolish teaching ABOUT religion in school. They just said that they will not allow children to be indoctrinated daily during school hours. I do not see your comparison with fascism.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools
Sweden does it again! If it wasn't so damn cold, I would move my family there. I wish the US government would wake up and start teaching our children FACTS instead of fairytales!!
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools
It's not that cold.
Re: Swedish schools
I think a lot of you are missing the phrase "as if it is true." It makes the move much more admirable. As I have gathered, they may still teach the beliefs, but they may not teach them "as truth." Go Sweden, indeed!
Re: Swedish versus English
The author of the article tries to portray the english society as more moderate than their Swedish counterparts... which is absolute horseradish
"would like: she wanted to ban all religious schools altogether. But it is still a pretty drastic measure from an English perspective."
Come on man, I am English with an English perspective and find this perfectly acceptable. Dont confuse Americanism with Englishism. Most of the world consider Americans as fundamentalists and that guys like Bush can break bread with guys like Bin Laden... their world few kind of correlates.
Correct Decision
Religious indoctrination of very young children is tantamount to child abuse. If God's message is so powerful and compelling, there is no need to inflict it on people when they are vulnerable, and this includes impressionable children. Indeed, many (particularly the more extreme) religious belief systems are extremely debilitating in later life.
Any reasonable god would be willing to wait and would presumably be more gratified by people turning to religion when their critical capacities were fully developed.
Free will
I don't really think Swedish schools are all that totalitarian... Teachers in Swedish schools are not to divulge their political opinions, for instance, to not influence students that way. The same goes for religious views (even though they're not prohibited from, for instance, wearing a cross or a hijab).
If a school can teach religious views as fact, it will not be able to give students a balanced view of the world ('why did they go to war? because they believe in false gods and are decieved by demons.') which robs the students of understanding the world. Also, children in religious schools should more than any be introduced to other teachings than the bible, qu'ran or talmud (and so on) as they should be given the option of what to believe in. Is it really free will, if you know of no other way of living? Of thinking? Children do not belong to their parents, and should be able to choose for themselves who they are and what they believe in. An impartial school could be essential for making such decisions.
Re: Free will
An impartial school? Teaching evolution as truth and saying that Creationism isn't correct isn't being impartial. If a parent is sending their child to a private school it's because they want them to learn what is true for them. I was taught that evolution is correct but I formed my own opinions about it. Why can't a parent send their child to a private school and have them be taught what they believe is correct and the child can then form their own opinions? I don't understand how anyone can justify taking religious beliefs out of a private religious school.
Re: Free will
Science, as opposed to religion, is impartial. I think it's great that you found your own world view, in spite of being taught something else. Which basically proves my point, as well.. You were given an educated choice, were you knew the alternatives and chose the one that suited you. Your personal truth.
However, children DO NOT belong to their parents, parents should not be able to dictate what truth is for their children. It is the right of the individual to decide for himself what truth is. (not absolute truth, of course. but personal truth.) I have trouble believing that a child raised in a very religious environment, who goes to a religious school will have access to enough knowledge to make an educated choice on belief. And isn't that what free will is all about?
As far as I understand it, man was given free will and the ability to choose good over evil (or the other way around) because without it, there would be no faith. Choice being the operative word here.
Re: Free will
I understand what you're saying, and from a worldly view, I agree with you. However if you were to look at it from the point of view of a Christian (or any other religion..I'm going to talk about Christianity here though, I'm not super familiar with other religions) parent, you would see where the trouble is. (Obviously. And not only because of the whole creationism vs. evolution debate.) Christian parents are to raise their children as children of God and teach them the only truth that they know. If a parent is not allowed to have their children taught that what is said in the Bible is true, it sort of takes away everything Christianity should be about; following the word of God. Do you see what I'm saying? Children who are raised in Christian families and who are taught Christian truths DO have free will, as is evident in most so-called Christians these days. Can you really say that if you truly believed in something, had incredible faith in it, whether it be a god or something else, that you would want your children to be taught that something else is true? Something that completely disagrees with the things that you believe?
Re: Free will
But they can still teach their child anything they want to. I feel that if a person was really comfortable in their faith, in their way of life, they wouldn't feel insecure about other teachings. They would be certain that their child would choose the right (only) path. And that the world eventually will come around to believing as they do.
Why not say 'Science once thought that bumblebees should not be able to fly. Today they have proven otherwise. Perhaps tomorrow they will find that the Bible is true too. '
Teaching science instead of religion also gives the children a better base for higher education, as well as society in large.
As I don't belong to any of the monotheistic religions which dominate the Western world, I have to say that my children will be taught, surrounded by, religious beliefs I don't adhere to. I hope that I will be a strong enough influence in my childrens lives for them to follow in my footsteps. But since I don't believe they'll go to hell if they don't.. I guess I'll chill. However, it is a good point you're making.
Re: Free will
That's very true, parents should be strong enough in their faith to be able to accept that not everybody believes in what they do and that their children will be exposed to that. I just think that the government should have done something different. Introducing evolution in the classroom alongside teaching creationism or whatever else, maybe? They could just teach both, emphasizing that many people in the world accept evolution as truth and many accept creationism as truth, and let the student decide for themselves what seems more true to them. Or is that kind of what they're doing now?
Re: Free will
No, it's not at all what they're doing. Basically, religion stays in religion class. In history it is not taught about Moses parting the sea, since there is no historical evidence of it. In science, creationism is not taught, since there is no scientific evidence of that either. However, in religion class the stories of how Moses parted the Red Sea, and how God created the world in 6 days are taught.
I don't know where you're from or how much you know of Sweden, but it is important, I think, to understand that this has caused almost no debate at all in Sweden. The idea of teaching creationism as science is foreign to almost all Swedes, I've never met anyone who feels otherwise. I don't really know how it works, as I remember being taught about God creating the world and Adam having one rib less than Eve (that one stayed with me for years! I think I found out like 3 yrs ago that men and women have the same amount of ribs...) but then being taught about evolution and that stayed too..
Although the separation of church and state did not occur until the year 2000 (or 2001?), religion has always been private to the Swedish people. There is some debate every year at graduation as most of the time graduation ceremonies are held in churches, but most people don't see that as pushing religion onto anyone. Also, until just a few years ago, there was almost no protests against entire schools going to church for xmas and easter services ever year. Today, children who have notes from their parents are excused from such events, but there's really no fuss about it.
The only time people in Sweden really get upset by religion (except from violence and so on) is when Jehovas Witnesses come to the door. The main attitude is that you can believe anything you want to, as long as you don't push it on other people.
Re: Free will
Even the Vatican accepts that Evolution is a scientific fact. Sure, it's a lot HARDER to be Christian when you have to reconcile your faith with so many facts, but hey - that's what faith is. If faith is too difficult, then just go with the facts. Don't ignore the facts to make faith easier - that's not faith.
Re: Free will
Sweden is saying brainwashed parents can't send kids to be brainwashed again on the state's nickel. The state's job is to educate *all* kids about the facts. Your "own opinion" is not fact. I wish that similar legislation here in the US would follow.
The opposite of extremism = critical thinking
IMNSHO, I think this is pretty sensible. As I've said before, the opposite of radical extremism from one religion is NOT radical extremism from another religion -- it's critical thinking.
Linked at my blog, thanks!
nice one
Nice one, time to move to Sweden and now not just because of the hot chicks.
This has nothing to do with denying spirital beliefs at all
I'm from Sweden, and we are very tolerant against religious beliefs and foreign traditions. At least in my experience. To make it illegal to teach religious doctrine as truth is NOT the same as outlawing religion or spirital beliefs. We have classrooms filled with people from everywhere in the world, and everybody is entitled to their own opinions and traditions. We just don't accept claiming either one of them as an ultimate truth or way of life. This legal action is not the same as saying that there is NO god, as atheists do, and it's not the same as saying that people can't believe what they want. It just means that we should encourage an unbiased and neutral perspective of the world as much as possible. Whatever you believe beyond that is entirely up to you, but it should be expressed as a personal point of view, not an absolute truth.
If we were to allow it, then where whould we draw the line? Would it be ok to teach ancient Egyptean, Nordic, Greek or Aztec religions as well? Should we allow teachings of a flat earth that the sun orbits?
If you can't prove it, you shouldn't teach it. It's as simple as that.
/ Frank
Re: This has nothing to do with denying spirital beliefs at all
If you can't prove it, you shouldn't teach it.
Thank you Frank. Your words are music to my ears LOL.
What else could we expect from the land that brought Hasselblads to the world?
Well done, Sweden.
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
Yay for Sweden! Once again leading the way on the social/cultural front. I wish I could raise my children in such a system and hopefully such policy will filter down to the less enlightened countries like the U.S.A.
I love Sweden
I am really thinking about moving to Sweden. (Must search for unis there.)
Re: I love Sweden
and unis a free of charge ;) you need to have some income to live on though..
Re: Swedish government kicks religion in the throat
Rocketh thee, Sweden.
Sweden is a great country
What the article does not mention is that the education for all students in Sweden is funded by the government, whether the study at a private school or not. The curriculum is also identical for all schools so it is therefore very appropriate for the government to set the standards for the education.
Sweden kicks ass sometimes! You other countries have a few things to learn...
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach rel
I wonder if they still believe in santa1?!?, Foreclosure A team, does not approve!
Re: Swedish government makes it illegal for schools to teach
Greetings, everyone.
Thanks for the comments!
We had a spam attack yesterday and some of your posts got flagged - I hope they're all visible now.
Re:
Instead of banning religion in school, I personally think it would be more wise to make logic classes mandatory. Teach people to think for themselves, and let them decide. Because after-all, banning books in school worked out so well as-to prevent people from reading them. :)
Anyway, all of you claiming atheism has no burden of providing proof, are fool-hardy. You are making a claim of a universal negative, 'there is no creator', It's either one way or the other, there is a creator, or there is not.
Claiming such a presumptuous thing is quite on par with religious claims of the exact opposite, so please don't act as if you are any better than them.
One proud agnostic, reporting out.
;)
Proud Atheist-Agnostic
Very few atheists make the claim "there is no god".
To be an atheist one need only say "I don't believe in god".
Most of us are both atheist and agnostic. (You need to look at the root of these words, one means "without belief", the other "without knowledge".) We don't believe and we don't know. These things are not mutually exclusive. There are two questions to answer; "Do you believe?" and "Do you know?".
To me the most logical answer is "I don't" and "I don't".
After having said all that I'll still add that it's not a difficult to go that extra little step and say "there is no god". This claim is not based on "faith", though, it is based on the fact that there is no credible evidence for the existence of any god thus far dreamed up by Man.
Re: Swedish government makes......
Van Campbell, I was not aware of that. However, I have personally not met many atheists who claim both, generally it's angst ridden anti-creator sentiment.
I personally don't see a creator being out of the question though. (I guess this makes a big leap, but still.).
We are on the verge of creating AI more advanced than even ourselves. So when we do, will we then be gods?
That's is why I do not disregard the prospect of a creator. For there to be a creator, doesn't require mystical mumbo jumbo.
So, to me the most logical answer is; "I don't know" and "I don't know".
:)
Re
Evolution is in no way a fact, and it has never been proven. It is a theory that Darwin himself said was only a theory, and was probably unlikely. There is not a single shred of evidence that evolution is fact, and anyone who says there is doesn't know the facts. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal more evidence against evolution then there is for it. Anyone who claims there is evidence for evolution has simply been told that there is, by people who have in turn just been told there was evidence. A true scientist would never say evolution is fact, because it simply cannot be proven. For a theory to be proven, it must be able to be reproduced, and evolution cannot be reproduced. The fossil record is not evidence for evolution, it is in fact evidence against it if you look into ancient history. And the lucy fossil also cannot be used as evidence for evolution, as the pieces that made the ape fossil able to stand up straight, were found in another dig site so far away that they can't logically be from the same creature. But an evolutionist decided to put them together and create fake evidence for his beliefs. Evolution simply cannot be taught as fact, because it actually takes more faith to believe in it, then it does to believe in a Christian or Muslim doctrines.
As for this law being passed, it is simply the government taking away the freedom of there religious citizens. To say that a privately owned school cannot teach there religion is ridiculous, because if you do not want to be taught religious doctrines, then you simply choose not to go to the school.
Post new comment