The Swedish government is making it illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true
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.
The question is whether we in Britain will come to see this as a necessary move in the struggle to contain Islamist ideologies. Can a defence of freedom convincingly be mounted by a state that takes such a firm view of what is or is not true? Or can freedom not be preserved without such measures? The dilemma makes no sense from a completely liberal position, where it is assumed that the truth will always win out in fair competition, and that the state is almost always to be distrusted. But Swedes have never really been liberal in that sense, notwithstanding the fact that the two ministers involved here are members of the Liberal party.
That’s an interesting thought, that truth will always win out in fair competition. I personally believe that to be a slightly naive viewpoint, no offense meant. “Truth” is determined by the minds of those in power, whether religious truth or secular truth. In fair competition, various truths would battle it out but chances are, none would succeed in toppling the others. So, in this case, the State’s truth, whether to be distrusted or not from the liberal perspective, is the truth of the powerful. It just happens to coincide with yours and my belief systems.
It’s certainly an interesting step by the Swedes, but is it feasible, or will they just have a small religious rebellion?
In Gothenburg there’s a church on every corner!!! Never could understand that and the 80 per cent (according to the tourist woman on the coach) atheism.
Well it would probably help if you took into consideration the fact that most of those churches were built a long time ago, hundreds of years ago in some cases. When you remember that and that the atheist population wasn’t significant (in terms of numbers) until a few decades ago, it makes sense that there are a lot of atheists, but also a lot of churches.
What the hell are you talking about? Atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s a lack of religion. Religion has not existed for all time, which means everyone started out as atheists, and it was only after that religion took over…
There have always been atheists and there always will be. At no point in human history has our populations been ‘insignificant’… that’s pure delusion on your part.
There’s a similar situation in Montreal, Canada. There are hundreds of churches littered throughout the island and more than 400 streets named after saints, yet the majority are non-religious or religiously inactive.
Good.
Awesome!
No one should be taught that something is a fact unless it can actually be reasonably proven without a doubt.
. . . so the THEORY of evolution shouldn’t be taught either then, right?
I just realized that the way I said that seemed kinda rude, and I’m sorry. I didn’t mean for it to.
I don’t see it as an attack on “church” or “faith” or whatever religious reasons. I see this as quality control, if the information being taught can not be independently confirmed, they it can not be put out as evidence. Just like an ad for OJ, if it has no % of real OJ, should not be sold as OJ… its just a drink… well, religion is just a theory, sell it as such.
This is a truly wonderful idea, I sincerely hope that America may someday pass or even consider similar legislation.
This is good, and parents should not be able to decide what their child is taught. Forcing your child to develop christian beliefs, for example, is basically a form of abuse in my eyes. It should be the choice of the child to decide once they are capable of considering all the other belief systems. These days it seems children are started in churches and religious schools before they can even speak a full sentence.
I genuinely believe that this is a truly liberal piece of legislation.
if you look at it, the swedes are saying that people cannot force children to believe in a religion, allowing the children to develop a personal (unless, of course, limited by parents who hate them/want them to follow their religion). Overall, it gives the children more freedom, allowing a choice of religion to become a truly personal decicision, which it should be.
I understand what you’re saying, but honestly, a lot of teachers and just people in general teach them things in such a way that the child would feel like a fool for questioning it, and even if they chose a religion on their own, would be “hated”/made fun of by those kinds of people. I’ve seen it hundreds of times.
I so happy that a country has done this, religion taught as truth should not be in any school. School is a place where religious belief should be left behind. Allowing the children of different beliefs to not be separated. Although I’m all for Nyamko Sabuni’s and somewhat agree with Dawkings.
Great idea. Won’t work in the US, Individual states are allowed to determine the cirriculum of public schools. And besides, there are too many thoroughly brainwashed Americans.
I’m moving to Sweden ASAP.
LuisFPB:
Religion is not a theory. Gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory. Religion is a myth. A very popular and widely held myth, but a myth nonetheless. Without supporting evidence of some kind, a claim cannot be called a “theory”.
Way to go Sweden. I’m moving to Sweden too.
I wish Australian politicians looked to Europe instead of US for their role models. The Europeans generally and Sweden in particular seem so sensible. Wouldn’t want to live there though. Much too cold for my taste.
My god some light in the Dark Ages that blankets planet Earth. Bravo!
This is not an attack on “religion” or “faith”, but it should be. All of us “non-religious” people have been under attack from these narrow minded idiots for centuries. And they get their ideals from a book that mentions unicorns. I believe that religion of all kinds should be banned from all public forums. You can practice any religion or no religion you want in private, but keep it there. And anyone who preaches “the word”, be it Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu…, should be forced to read their own book. After all, the fastest way to make an Atheist or Agnostic would be to read them. And I mean read them cover to cover, because none of my copies came with instructions. They are so full of blatant lies, that only a complete idiot would believe them. I mean they mention Satyrs on more than one occasion. Not to mention there is not one archaeological finding that supports any of those lies. And we have to put up with them trying to force it down our throats in the USA. So when I meet one of these “holier than thou” people, I quickly jump up shove it down their throats, and all with their own books. You can win any religious argument just by opening the “insert religious fable title here†for reference, the lies, deceit, racism, sexism, favoritism, and self righteousness is enough to remove their argument without effort. And they always say, “Why do you hate God/Allah/Jehovah?†I don’t, just his moronic followers.
Down with religion! I rather worship cartoons at least there are cool people behind those creations
great step forward for mankind and peace, not to mention that in every fascist countries the regime was invariably covered by the blanket of the church…with a blessing
Finally!
The light of rational thinking takes a step forward!
Damn shame critical thought is frowned upon in the USA.
“The decision looks like a really startling attack on the right of parents to have their children taught what they would like.”
What about the right of the children to not have they’re minds poisoned?
I only beleive in what I can touch and feel.
I can feel the wind on my face, I can feel the warmth of the sun, I can touch water.
I can see that one day there will be a return to Pagan ways.
Religion, the catalyst for all wars! Northern Ireland is a prime example.
Peace x
I was about 8 years old playing with another boy in his sandbox when I told him innocently that I had discovered that God was something that grownups invented to explain what the did not understand. He ran in to the house and told his mother what I had said. She came out and chased me away, screeming that I must never come to their house again. I am 79 and that was 70+ years ago. My mother had just died and I remember walking back from school and trying to imaging that walking through the kitchen door, she would be there with cookies and milk. But instead there were kind and loving aunts telling me that that it was God’s will.
Daybreak when my mother died a woke up seeing father and grandpa at the foot of the bed with kandkercheif at their eyes I understod that mothers stomach aches had ended. I was told that it was God’s will. There was some confusion. Life must go on. I was sent to the nearby grocery store to buy sausage for breakfast. The kindly grocer, aware of my mothers illnes, asked how she were. I said she is ded. He picked a piece of candy from a jar and gave it to me. I flung it at him an ran home with the sausage. Candy for my mother! It is God’s will.
@Guy: Ojeez, you did not just say that “No one should be taught that something is a fact unless it can actually be reasonably proven without a doubt”, did you? You didn’t really mean that, did you? Cos, you know, it doesn’t JUST apply to religion, i’m currently being taught in my physics class at school about quarks. Which scientists cannot prove exists, as these fundamental particles cannot be seen on their own.
@Mo: So, show me the religious catalyst that started the World Wars, the biggest wars in our history. Oh, you can’t? Please don’t try and pin human violence on religion, we just look for things to use as excuses, you’d do it for politics if it wasn’t for religion…
Also, it really is wrong to make it illegal to teach creationism and ID in schools, in the same way it shouldn’t be illegal to teach evolution: intelligent design has EXACTLY the same amount of evidence as evolution to prove it, being basically the same theory…
And so, being the only theist on this page, i’d like to show the fact that you guys are being too extremist:
1. Why do atheists hate theists so much? Did we ever do anything to YOU?
2. Not all theists are fundamentalist, some of us would probably fit better into society than you guys…
and 3. Notice how i’m much more accepting of this than you would be if it was banning scientific viewpoints instead? Well, that’s because YOU’RE A BUNCH OF STUCK-UP PEOPLE WHO CAN’T SEE OTHERS VIEWPOINTS!!!
Sorry about that out-burst, but would you really like me to lie to you instead? Cos, God frowns on that.
anser to your questions joe:
1. No one hates theists, we atheists just hate the fact that you guys have to convert everyone in the world by mass manipulation, government corruption and lies.
2. So what, is there a problem with not fitting into a society that is corrupt and wrong?
3. YOUR ACCEPTING OF OUR VIEWPOINTS. LOL, scientific viewpoints are based off of evidence, your evidence was a book that was written 2000 years ago.
In response to Joe-
@Joe @Guy- You can prove Quarks are there with mathematics, even if you can’t see them. (Not to be confused with God, who is supposedly immaterial). Quarks can be proven to materially exist.
@Joe @Mo- Mo is incorrect to assume that all wars are began by religious inspiration, though it is funny you use the example of WW2. Didn’t Hitler propose the idea that the Aryans had a “divine” right to the world?
Creationism does not have ANY scientific evidence to back it up. This is admitted even by most creationist scientists! It has no application to the real world as there are no accepted theories associated with it. Creationism and Intelligent Design are masks for pushing fundamentalist Christian views through school in a world that has moved far past the myths of our ancestors.
1) Well, not all atheists hate theists, that is a blanket statement with no underlying truth. And “Dog” covers the other point rather nicely. Don’t the non-religious have a right to be angry? Many of us don’t particularly desire going through another dark age anytime soon.
2) I’m not sure what your point is with number two. “Fitting in” to society doesn’t mean doing the right thing. That justifies any of the Nazi’s positions in WW2. “Sorry world! I was just fitting in! My bad!”
3) Science creates the best possible correspondence with reality. Religion creates the illusion of correspondence with reality.
Joe: “intelligent design has EXACTLY the same amount of evidence as evolution”
hahahaha… yes… EXACTLY the same amount.
But back to the article in question.
I am in favour of this, religion should not be taught as fact, not in schools, not even in churches. Evolution (whilst backed up by compelling evidence) is also a theory… don’t dare call it fact to a strong believer in ID. The difference between believers in ID and evolution is an open mind. I’m 110% sure, if undeniable scientific evidence came out tomorrow that evolution and ID were both false and another theory (backed by undeniable evidence) were released, people believing in evolution would evaluate the evidence and accept it. ID believers would remain stubbornly in the dark.
The Dawkins ideology of banning parents teaching their children about religion also interests me. I am very anti-organised religion as a direct result of my strong bullshit/christian upbringing, and consider the lies i was fed abuse… but making it illegal on such a personal level is surely a violation of freedom of speech? on the other hand, i don’t think children should be exposed to this nonsense until they can fully understand it for themselves.
On a final note, I don’t think legislation needs to be made to ban religion and it’s teachings, give it 50 odd years and no one will believe in it anyway.
That’s what church is for… teaching the Bible (or which ever given religion’s book)… not public school.
Haha ^^ nice, is there a section to follow the RSS feed
The last paragraph of this article is silly.
To start, the state does not take a position on what is true; it simply states that what might possibly be true can not be taught as true. I don’t understand how the author jumbled this up, seeing as how it was the point of the article.
Secondly, the idea that “truth” should be won out in fair competition is precisely the idea driving this legislation. It disallows schools from etching a particular viewpoint into impressionable minds; it helps prevent unfair competition, if you will.
Interesting news, though, and I’m glad to hear it.
The fact that “private schools” in sweden means completely different thing than it would in the US or many other countries for that matter.
Private schools are just called private because they are built on non-gonvernemnt initiatives. They still get their funding, materials, and salaries from the government and as such they should obide by the same laws of teaching as public schools in sweden. If the meaning of “private schools” would be privately funded and built then this might be somewhat hypocritical but as it is now I see no reason why the swedish government should not have these laws written.
“intelligent design has EXACTLY the same amount of evidence as evolutionâ€
The fact that anyone is impressionable enough to believe that sentence justifies Sweden’s actions.
Should be made international law and strickly enforced!!!
Should be made international law and strickly enforced!!! All money begging preachers should hanged for witchgraft.
Did god create the universe, or did matter create the universe. Both, or all, considerations should be given equal time. But they’re not.
They’re not equal theories so they should not be given equal time, ESPECIALLY not in schools for children. If we let creationism be taught based on this equal time crap, we should then give equal time to the flying spaghetti monster theory.
Mo writes:
<>
With all due respect, Mo, I’m not sure you’d make a very effective scientist. If the universe consisted only of what we could touch and feel, there would be little need for science. In fact, science is not even a materialistic enterprise — it’s a method of inquiry that transcends particular theories and philosophies such as materialism or nonmaterialism and tries as best it can (within the limits of human nature) to follow the preponderance of the evidence wherever it leads. This notion may be disturbing to materialist fundamentalists, but that’s how the cookie crumbles. If physics never went beyond the sensory and the strictly material it would never have acknowledged field phenomena such as gravity, electrostatics, magnetism and electromagnetism as well as atomic and subatomic forces and, at the other extreme, astronomical and cosmogenic phenomena that are strictly beyond materialistic lab analysis and may be studied only by means of observation and inference.
As for the question of religion, it’s widely recognized that the two most narrow and laughably literalistic interpretations of “god” come from a) religious fundamentalists and b) scientists who are generally ignorant of modern theology. I agree with the Swedes, but if I were in their shoes I would also prescribe some sophisticated courses in modern theology, which is worlds apart from simplistic popular religion and has nothing to do with blind belief in any particular philosophy.
I would also prescribe rigorous courses in anomalistics — the study of things that, according to the current paradigm, can’t or shouldn’t happen, but which happen anyway. The purpose of such courses would be to ensure that mainstream science didn’t get too stuck behind its own unexamined assumptions about the nature of reality. (“Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly.” – Thomas Kuhn)
Mo writes:
** I only beleive in what I can touch and feel.**
With all due respect, Mo, I’m not sure you’d make a very effective scientist. If the universe consisted only of what we could touch and feel, there would be little need for science. In fact, science is not even a materialistic enterprise — it’s a method of inquiry that transcends particular theories and philosophies such as materialism or nonmaterialism and tries as best it can (within the limits of human nature) to follow the preponderance of the evidence wherever it leads. This notion may be disturbing to materialist fundamentalists, but that’s how the cookie crumbles. If physics never went beyond the sensory and the strictly material it would never have acknowledged field phenomena such as gravity, electrostatics, magnetism and electromagnetism as well as atomic and subatomic forces and, at the other extreme, astronomical and cosmogenic phenomena that are strictly beyond materialistic lab analysis and may be studied only by means of observation and inference.
As for the question of religion, it’s widely recognized that the two most narrow and laughably literalistic interpretations of “god” come from a) religious fundamentalists and b) scientists who are generally ignorant of modern theology. I agree with the Swedes, but if I were in their shoes I would also prescribe some sophisticated courses in modern theology, which is worlds apart from simplistic popular religion and has nothing to do with blind belief in any particular philosophy.
I would also prescribe rigorous courses in anomalistics — the study of things that, according to the current paradigm, can’t or shouldn’t happen, but which happen anyway. The purpose of such courses would be to ensure that mainstream science didn’t get too stuck behind its own unexamined assumptions about the nature of reality. (”Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly.” – Thomas Kuhn)
What an excellent and forward thinking move by Sweden. Religion is for families to teach their children. Teaching it in school, the place where children are sent to learn facts, confuses the boundary between what is real and what is an opinion based upon the superstitions of a bunch of nomadic desert dwellers hellbent on conquering their neighbours.