Swedish government clamps down on religious schools

[struth*ruth]

It is not the government's job to decide what is true and what is not, and it surely isn't their place to decide what can be taught in a private setting.

NO NO NO NO..... The government isn't deciding what is "true" and what is not - they want to teach scientific fact (- you know - the studies that have been proven to be correct, time and time again by individual parties!!!!) over and above religious doctrines, and of course it's their place to investigate and protect people being taught in private, just as much as they should do in state run schools.

Religious elements "can take place ... but only outside of coursework. Teaching should not be influenced" by religious beliefs, Swedish Education Minister Jan Bjoerklund told reporters........ For example, the origin of human life would have to be explained from a scientific point of view and not a religious one, he said.

(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7o ... VL5ET8zdhw)

Why stop at religions? Why not continue to political ideologies, world views etc? I think you understand what I'm getting at.

Damn it - they're not deciding/dictating/controlling "truth" and they're definitely not saying religious views can't be teached.

The government has no place ENFORCING truth [more accurately, what that government professes to be truth], because "truth" is constantly changing.

We're going round and round in circles here...... Don't get hung up on the word truth - they mean fact: Evolution vs ID/Creationism.

Religious doctrine should not directly influence government, and vice versa.

You're right - it's just a shame you didn't read the article thoroughly as you would see this is NOT what the Swedish government are doing!

You all are basing your entire judgment on the sole fact that YOU ARE ATHEISTS. The same way ID in schools and no gay rights gets support for the sole fact that many people are CHRISTIANS [And of course, you all think it is corrupt for that to happen- another example of blatant hypocrisy].

No - that would be correct if I supported the Swedish government in ridding schools of all religious teaching completely, but I fail to see how teaching FACT is anything except brilliant!!

Again, government should not have a say in what a private religious institution can preach, as long as no harm comes from the teaching

Funnily enough IT'S GOT EVERY BLOODY THING TO DO WITH HARM COMING FROM THE TEACHING!!!!!

Religious content shall be banned in schools. That's a decision made by the leaders of the Alliance, the four-party coalition that currently leads Sweden. They will also stop hidden contributions and a mismanaged school will be shut down within 2 weeks. "The pupils must be protected against all forms of fundamentalism" say Jan Björklund, the Swedish education minister.

(http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 91466.html)

He cited the case of an independent Muslim school that had received financial aid from a fundamentalist Islamic organisation in Saudi Arabia.

(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7o ... VL5ET8zdhw)

Or does fundamentalism not count as harmful teaching?!?!

Why are people so ignorant of the key words "as if it were true."

They can teach whatever they want, they just can't tell children it's fact. The parents are free to do that, the church is free to do that, but the school is not. The school is not to be an ideological breeding ground, but the paragon of critical thought and the independant mind.

You are saying that teaching religious doctrine in private schools is WRONG because Sweden passed a law saying it was.

Pappa - is it me?... I don't think this guy's reading the same thread as us........

[Vexen]

A good move I say. I don't consider this a violation of rights at all. If you want to hold ludicrous ideas and consider them as truth that is your right. If you want to preach these ideas in a public place, that is your right. What isn't a right is to indoctrinate children that your brand of lunacy is correct, whether they are your children or somebody else's. Schools are places where facts are taught. Religion isn't a fact. Religious beliefs should be taught (know thine enemy), it is part of the world and many people hold religious beliefs, but it has no place being taught to children as fact. If you want to do that so desperately, home school your children.

Taught about religion, yes. Taught that religion is the truth, no.

Congratulations Sweden. :cheers:

Awesome and inspiring! And I completely agree with The Red Fox and others; there is no infringement of anyone's rights here: teachers must teach responsibly in order to UPHOLD children's rights. If parents want to teach their religions as facts, they still can - it doesn't make it right for them to do so, but, they are still free to do so.

Sweden rocks, try this from my page "Scandinavia: The Crown of Civilisation: Sweden is the Best Country in the World!" by Vexen Crabtree 2005+:

Listed as the 6th best country in the United Nations Human Development Report 2005. Sweden in 1919 was part of the general European rush towards female emancipation, although it was not a world leader in equal votes for women it was still one of the first 10% of the world to arrive there. In modern times, Sweden has the best record for gender equality across a range of issues. It has the worlds' sixth highest life expectancy. The Economist Quality of Life study states that Sweden is the fifth best place to live. From 2001 to the 2003-2004 and 2006 reports, the World Economic Forum has shown Sweden is consistently the third most economically competitive country. Its government was the first, in 1987, to recognize same sex partnerships. One of the least obese countries (10.4% of the population, perhaps 8th least obese in the developed world). Sweden has the best 'high literacy' rate in the world, and not just by a small margin! For a developed country, Swedes do not smoke much and do not drink much; both far less than Western averages. Sweden ranks top in allowing open access to scientific research. In 2005, out of the worlds' most developed countries, Sweden was fourth most generous in giving aid to developing countries, and in 2006 was the 3rd best country for the poor. It has the 7th lowest level of computer software piracy.

[CoolHat]

And I'm not saying children are property of their parents, but I will not standby restricting a parent's influence in his/her child's life- UNLESS harm comes to that child.

Therein lies the problem, doesn´t it? I think everyone here agrees that a parents have no right to do harm to their children. But what is considered harmful, where do you draw the line? At what point are child´s rights violated in a way that justifies government intervention?

There are obvious answers like physical and sexual abuse, but what about psychological abuse? At what point does education become indoctrination or brain-washing? Is saying "god exists" considered harmful? Or "evolution is a lie"? Or "blood transfusion are evil"? Or "God wants you to kill the unbelievers"?

Although I do not personally like what Swedish government is doing, things are not black and white. It´s easy to cry out for individual freedom and say "everyone should be free to do whatever they like as long they do not harm others". But then you need to define the word "harm" and things get complicated.

[Dr. Kwaltz]

Sweden shows the way, well done

Yes.... now if only EVERY nation would forcefully decide what is considered truth, rather than decide the problem through solely rational discourse.

Rational? Really? Seriously?

About bronze age mythologies? What for? I'm still waiting to see some evidence for any of the over 6700 gods claimed to exist by humans and I haven't seen anything, nothing, nada, zilch, zero...

What is it you want to discuss?

[Kirkinson]

If someone puts their own MONEY and WORK into building a private religious school. And people sign up, the government has no right to tell that private industry what it can and can't teach.

That's not what they're doing. The AFP story that the Guardian writer linked to himself states the following:

They would apply to public schools as well as independent schools, which also receive funding from the state. Private schools are exempt.

Someone who puts their own money and work into building a private school will not be affected by this. Andrew Brown seems to be sort of confused about the difference between private schools and independent schools. Independent schools may be founded with private money but the actual education of the students is still paid for by the state, which means the state still sets the curriculum. Private schools are completely removed from state funding, and they're also completely removed from these proposals.

And really, looking again at the AFP story, the "clamp down" on religious schools is nowhere near as far-reaching as some people here are making it out to be:

The Swedish government on Monday presented a series of proposals banning public and independent schools from introducing religious elements into their classes except during religion lessons. ... religion could still be studied at school as a separate subject but other classes could in no way be influenced by religious convictions.

This is precisely what secularism is all about.

[BigBrother]

If someone puts their own MONEY and WORK into building a private religious school. And people sign up, the government has no right to tell that private industry what it can and can't teach.

That's not what they're doing. The AFP story that the Guardian writer linked to himself states the following:

They would apply to public schools as well as independent schools, which also receive funding from the state. Private schools are exempt.

Someone who puts their own money and work into building a private school will not be affected by this. Andrew Brown seems to be sort of confused about the difference between private schools and independent schools. Independent schools may be founded with private money but the actual education of the students is still paid for by the state, which means the state still sets the curriculum. Private schools are completely removed from state funding, and they're also completely removed from these proposals.

And really, looking again at the AFP story, the "clamp down" on religious schools is nowhere near as far-reaching as some people here are making it out to be:

The Swedish government on Monday presented a series of proposals banning public and independent schools from introducing religious elements into their classes except during religion lessons. ... religion could still be studied at school as a separate subject but other classes could in no way be influenced by religious convictions.

This is precisely what secularism is all about.

Well, crisis averted then.

I don't believe this was posted before...

[BigBrother]

It has to do with a secular society.

Your definition of a secular society. And the American definition. But not mine, and not Sweden's (nor for that matter, the rest of the civilised world's). Secularism in your country is used to protect demagogues who poison children with irrational, illogical, and inhuman ideology. I care little for the values and ideals of a country that is alone in not ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (well, Somalia doesn't count as a real country), that overwhelmingly prefers a stupid & grotesque fairytale in favour of Darwinian evolution, and that is the land of the Jesus Camp.

Religious institution and government are separate. That IS the definition of secularism.

If you want to create your OWN definition, be my guest. But you accept your definition for the SOLE fact that you are an atheist. The definition I gave is the only definition anyone uses.

You think religious doctrine is bad. Great. You don't have to go around changing definitions of words to match.

[BigBrother]

Sweden shows the way, well done

Yes.... now if only EVERY nation would forcefully decide what is considered truth, rather than decide the problem through solely rational discourse.

Rational? Really? Seriously?

About bronze age mythologies? What for? I'm still waiting to see some evidence for any of the over 6700 gods claimed to exist by humans and I haven't seen anything, nothing, nada, zilch, zero...

What is it you want to discuss?

Again: I have never ONCE commented on the truth of any of the myths taught in religious schools.

I've simply said that restricting religious teaching in a private setting [which in fact wasn't done] is not secular and I do not support it. And any government to make that rule is authoritarian [the only ones to do so in the past were Jacobin France, Stalin's Russia and I believe Mao's China- not sure on that one].

[BigBrother]

And I'm not saying children are property of their parents, but I will not standby restricting a parent's influence in his/her child's life- UNLESS harm comes to that child.

Therein lies the problem, doesn´t it? I think everyone here agrees that a parents have no right to do harm to their children. But what is considered harmful, where do you draw the line? At what point are child´s rights violated in a way that justifies government intervention?

There are obvious answers like physical and sexual abuse, but what about psychological abuse? At what point does education become indoctrination or brain-washing? Is saying "god exists" considered harmful? Or "evolution is a lie"? Or "blood transfusion are evil"? Or "God wants you to kill the unbelievers"?

Although I do not personally like what Swedish government is doing, things are not black and white. It´s easy to cry out for individual freedom and say "everyone should be free to do whatever they like as long they do not harm others". But then you need to define the word "harm" and things get complicated.

It's fairly simple: do children educated religiously perform better in their careers or personal lives than those raised in a secular environment?

There is no evidence one way or the other. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL to call it abuse, with no evidence to support the claim.

[Stylesjl]

I applaud this move. Children should not be indoctrinated by ideology while they are still too young to think properly for themselves