Print
God's honest truth?
by Andrew Brown, Guardian
Thanks to Flagellant for the link.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/10/gods_honest_truth.html
The Swedish government is making it illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true. Britain should follow suit.
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.
Superficially, the British position could not be more different. The British government's strategy with Islam or protestant extremism in Ulster has been - so far as we have had one - flattery and corruption, or what Microsoft, in another context, calls "embracing and extending". Find the leaders, flatter them, and draw them into the ruling class in the hope that they will then cooperate and see that their followers do too. The gamble that the government is taking on faith schools is that if religious groups are given their own schools to run, they will do so in ways that will turn out for the benefit of society as a whole, as well as of their pupils. Certainly this works quite well with the Church of England. Anglican schools are happy, by and large, to teach religion as if it were not true; to put it in a more flattering light, they concentrate more on the fruits of the spirit than on dogma. However, no one supposes that society is threatened by a terrorist movement nurtured in C of E primary schools.
Demanding that Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic schools stop teaching their own religions as if they were true, which is essentially the Swedish position, looks an impossible task for a British government. But I think it might also be a necessary one. It is certainly the only way to discover whether the parents of such schools really want the "ethos" or the pseudo-factual beliefs and what exactly it is that the people who fund them think they are buying with their money.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/10/gods_honest_truth.html
The Swedish government is making it illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true. Britain should follow suit.
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.
Superficially, the British position could not be more different. The British government's strategy with Islam or protestant extremism in Ulster has been - so far as we have had one - flattery and corruption, or what Microsoft, in another context, calls "embracing and extending". Find the leaders, flatter them, and draw them into the ruling class in the hope that they will then cooperate and see that their followers do too. The gamble that the government is taking on faith schools is that if religious groups are given their own schools to run, they will do so in ways that will turn out for the benefit of society as a whole, as well as of their pupils. Certainly this works quite well with the Church of England. Anglican schools are happy, by and large, to teach religion as if it were not true; to put it in a more flattering light, they concentrate more on the fruits of the spirit than on dogma. However, no one supposes that society is threatened by a terrorist movement nurtured in C of E primary schools.
Demanding that Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic schools stop teaching their own religions as if they were true, which is essentially the Swedish position, looks an impossible task for a British government. But I think it might also be a necessary one. It is certainly the only way to discover whether the parents of such schools really want the "ethos" or the pseudo-factual beliefs and what exactly it is that the people who fund them think they are buying with their money.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 113 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #79752 by Matt7895 on October 18, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Its a wonderful approach by the Swedish government but there is absolutely no chance of any such measure being implemented by Britain, simply because our government supports faith schools.But at least we don't teach creationism or ID in our science lessons here. That's a relief, although it would be great if religious schools were banned altogether.
Other Comments by Matt7895
3. Comment #79753 by Tyler Durden on October 18, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I'm moving to Sweden!! :-) Other Comments by Tyler Durden
4. Comment #79756 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 12:55 pm
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.
I could be wrong but I sincerely doubt that Dawkins actually has such a "policy".
Other Comments by Bonzai
5. Comment #79757 by cssimeur on October 18, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I hope we will eventually see that policy instituted in the United States. Probably not in my lifetime, but I hope nonetheless.Other Comments by cssimeur
6. Comment #79759 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm
The British government's strategy with Islam or protestant extremism in Ulster has been - so far as we have had one - flattery and corruption, or what Microsoft, in another context, calls "embracing and extending".
Exactly.Britain basically applies the colonial technique to its own domestic immigrant population. It is self defeating not only because it fails to stop extremism. It actually further alienates the population it supposedly want to reach because the underlying assumption is that "these people" are not true British and that their "tribal leaders" are somehow the legitimate parties to speak on their behalf. This is patronizing and insulting and only enhances the feeling of otherness.
Other Comments by Bonzai
7. Comment #79760 by wombat on October 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm
The First Amendment would have to be severely altered to allow a policy like this in the US. Other Comments by wombat
8. Comment #79763 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 18, 2007 at 1:13 pm
And these are our conservatives I kid you not. Lucky me:-) Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
9. Comment #79764 by Janus on October 18, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Oh, wow! This is HUGE! A precedent has been set, and not only for public schools but for all schools!And as the article implies, I doubt this would ever have happened if it wasn't for Muslim fundamentalists. Thank goodness for those lunatics!
I could be wrong but I sincerely doubt that Dawkins actually has such a "policy".
You're not wrong. Dawkins is against faith schools, but he wouldn't support a _law_ that _prohibits_ parents from teaching their false beliefs to their children. Rather Dawkins is about consciousness raising, making people aware that children have rights too. Specifically, they have the right to not be indoctrinated to believe propositions that are not based on evidence. He's trying to change the way society thinks about these things, not to enforce anything with laws and regulations.
Other Comments by Janus
10. Comment #79766 by USA_Limey on October 18, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Won't this just make them feel oppressed and make them want to get on a boat and go the New World? Ahhhh... the penny drops.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
11. Comment #79767 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 18, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Breaking News : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7051804.stmMore lunacy, I hope she's ok:-/
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
12. Comment #79770 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Janus,Dawkins is against faith schools, but he wouldn't support a _law_ that _prohibits_ parents from teaching their false beliefs to their children. Rather Dawkins is about consciousness raising, making people aware that children have rights too. Specifically, they have the right to not be indoctrinated to believe propositions that are not based on evidence. He's trying to change the way society thinks about these things, not to enforce anything with laws and regulations.
That is my understanding. The sentence I quoted sounds as though Dawkins wants to have children taken away from their parents just because they read their kids bible stories.
Other Comments by Bonzai
13. Comment #79771 by PeterK on October 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I don't like it. Rather than legislating that religious dogma not be taught to the unsuspecting pupils, why not first teach critical thinking skills so the pupils will possess the tools to evaluate religious dogma as the complete and utter bullshit it is.Other Comments by PeterK
14. Comment #79772 by icanus on October 18, 2007 at 1:36 pm
The First Amendment would have to be severely altered to allow a policy like this in the US.
Would it? (I'm a Rightponder, so I have to declare a rather shaky grasp of the specific wording - the First is the freedom of expression one, right?)
Would it breach the first amendment for the government to take action against schools that wanted to teach that America was discovered in 1978 by two men blown off course during a fishing trip from a holiday resort in northern Spain?
Freedom of speech dictates that people (teachers included) are free to believe whatever they like and to express that belief, but not that schools, or the government which provides them with curriculum guidance, are obliged to provide them with a metaphorical megaphone. The measure described in the article doesn't say that it's illegal to believe that a particular religious doctrine is true, or illegal to tell others (including children) that it's true. It merely says that it's illegal to do so in one's capacity as a teacher.
It doesn't strike me as any more of a breach of the right to freedom of expression for schools to stop teachers pushing their religious views in the classroom than it would be for a company to forbid its sales staff from recommending the competition's products during their sales calls.
Other Comments by icanus
15. Comment #79774 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I don't like it. Rather than legislating that religious dogma not be taught to the unsuspecting pupils...
Why should schools be teaching religious dogma? Schools should be about education, not indoctrination.
Other Comments by steve99
16. Comment #79775 by Goldy on October 18, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Wonder if the Chinese have this problem?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7050728.stm
Playing the devil's advocate here - this is the argument that could be used to counter this move. I, for one, personally wuld like schooling to focus more on the 3 Rs and less on spiritual matters - that is a family affair.
Other Comments by Goldy
17. Comment #79777 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Good luck with that...Other Comments by SilentMike
18. Comment #79778 by Nick Good on October 18, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I understand that Sweden banned the genital mutilation of male infants too. Other Comments by Nick Good
19. Comment #79779 by Quine on October 18, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Comment #79760 by wombatThe First Amendment would have to be severely altered to allow a policy like this in the US.
Not necessarily; laws could be passed that equate teaching non factual religious beliefs to children under some age (say, 12) to some kind of child abuse. The First Amendment (glory be upon it) is not absolute; you can't legally "yell fire in a crowded theater" even when they are showing a porno film to an audience over 18. I am sure you could (and should) get protection to preach any religious nonsense (hate speech notwithstanding) to those over 18, but somewhere in the lower ages it is not so clear. (Something about teaching religion and showing porn to kids feels like a kind of equivalence to me.)
There is a case that kids have a basic human right not to be lied to about things that could impact the rest of their lives. It would be a big advance if the law said that you can teach kids about religion, but had to wait before you preach one as true in school. Naturally, there is no hope that any law would keep parents from taking their kids to church to be preached to, but that could be separated from the special authority environment of the school. That would be worth organizing.
EDIT:
From this Time article on withholding medical care:
For its part, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in twice on the topic; first in 1944, when it ruled that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves, it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The Court ruled similarly in a 1990 case.
Other Comments by Quine
20. Comment #79782 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 1:57 pm
The first amendment to my understanding doesn't prohibit legislations against false advertisements.Other Comments by Bonzai
21. Comment #79783 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I could be wrong but I sincerely doubt that Dawkins actually has such a "policy".
Well, You must be wrong. It is, after all, written in explicit pixels that he does, therefore is must no doubt be the case.
(Sheesh)
Other Comments by SilentMike
22. Comment #79784 by Kristian Z on October 18, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Should we accept the teaching of demonstrable falsehoods in schools? I think most would agree we shouldn't.Even religious people would agree that Christianity and Islam, to mention but two, cannot both be true. Hence, with Christian and Muslim schools teaching that their religion is true, at least one of these sorts of schools must logically teach falsehoods.
Knowing, then, that false teachings are being taught, and aknowledging that such a situation cannot be accepted, one can either try to figure out which, if any, religion is true and allow the teaching of that (an impossible task), or one can ban the teaching of all religions as if they were true.
Other Comments by Kristian Z
23. Comment #79785 by rthille on October 18, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Having a compulsory religion survey class that teaches the origins and stated beliefs of all/many of the various faiths would probably go a long way toward helping kids deal with the indoctrination they undoubtedly get at home. Has to happen at a pretty young age I'd imagine though.Other Comments by rthille
24. Comment #79786 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 2:08 pm
18. Comment #79778 by Nick Good
I understand that Sweden banned the genital mutilation of male infants too.
The swedes are kinda extraordinary generally in that way. But it seems to work for them. I really wish you could get people to stop being self destructive without passing laws like that.
19. Comment #79779 by Quine
Something about teaching religion and showing porn to kids feels like a kind of equivalence to me.
Somehow i doubt porn is as bad for kids as some heavy duty religious preaching. Under a certain age, they would simply be disinterested for the most part (not that I'm advocating trying that. I generally think that we shouldn't fool around with children's minds). No eternal torture talk in porn as far as I know.
Other Comments by SilentMike
25. Comment #79787 by clunkclickeverytrip on October 18, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I just wanted to add to this thread my congratulations to the Swedish Government for their approach to religion in schools.I don't know if they're the first to go this far, but to my knowledge this sets the benchmark for what constitutes responsible government in protecting the most vunerable members of society, children, from the misguided act of love (religious indoctrination) that some parents force upon them.
I hope the Swedish legislation forces debate, and ultimately change, within as many governments as possible around the globe.
Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip
26. Comment #79788 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 2:14 pm
This is one of the comments posted in the Guardian:JamesPlaskett
Comment No. 873731
October 18 19:59
ESP
I subscribe to no faith.
I do believe in God.
However, I could not care less whether or not anyone else does.
A Supreme Being could presumably do the arguing for Himself.
But, whilst we are touching upon the topic of indoctrination and of myth presented as fact, do not forget the actions of one R. Dawkins, Esq.
See here to see how the great rationalist and defender of free speech reacted when anyone had the temerity to point out the falsehoods in his own creation myth -
http://www.alternativescience.com/thes_and_richard_dawkins.htm
When Richard Dawkins did descend from his ivory tower into a debate on Darwinism at an Oxford College in the 1990s, HE LOST.
Which is why he never bothers to re-enter the debating arena these days.
He knows that he would just lose again.
Freedom of Speech is the very last thing for which Richard Dawkins stands.
He is only interested in people getting to hear his version.
And not the honest truth.
RD - I wonder whether you should address the virtual libel of this poster. And the gratuitous tripe that Andrew Brown inserted into his article.
V
Other Comments by Veronique
27. Comment #79790 by atheist_peace on October 18, 2007 at 2:20 pm
They wouldn't allow porn to be shown in school, so why should they allow religious mind-porn? Good job, Sweden.. another point for the good guys. Other Comments by atheist_peace
28. Comment #79791 by Goldy on October 18, 2007 at 2:25 pm
V, I saw that. Mind you, scrolling down, seems he's known from other esoteric circels. A certain WoolyMindedThinker welcomed him and asked him questions :-) Noting major - just things like why heliocentrism was wrong and evolution not.... heheheheheh!Other Comments by Goldy
29. Comment #79793 by Teratornis on October 18, 2007 at 2:32 pm
In reply to comment #79756 by Bonzai:
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 -
I could be wrong but I sincerely doubt that Dawkins actually has such a "policy".
Perhaps not a "policy" articulated as such, but Prof. Dawkins does draw a partial analogy between religious indoctrination and child abuse. Everybody knows how governments respond to child abuse.
There is a danger in such analogies in that they may seem to suggest more than the author intended when people hear only the sound-bite version.
For every person who reads an entire book, perhaps another ten will hear cherry-picked snippets out of context. Thus an author must choose words with care, trying at least not to simplify the opponents' job.
In any case, I think any sort of debate over the religious indoctrination of children is better than simply ignoring the problem, as was standard practice for several thousand years until quite recently. At least the indoctrinators know someone is taking an interest in their activities now.
Other Comments by Teratornis
30. Comment #79794 by Martin S on October 18, 2007 at 2:39 pm
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.
What about the human rights of the child? The right to grow up with a clear and unpolluted mind devoid of the reason suppressing virus of faith.
People so often carp on about their "rights" to bring up "their" child as they see fit. But parents don't "own" their child. It belongs to itself.
Other Comments by Martin S
31. Comment #79795 by 82abhilash on October 18, 2007 at 2:46 pm
The problem with this approach is that it has the potential to replace theological dogmas with nationalistic ones. The fact can end up being whatever the government says it is and then we are back to 1984 (the book). What if a radical right-wing party gets elected in Sweden, cashing in on the legitimate fears of Islamic fundamentalism?The government does have the right to decide what gets taught in schools which are funded with tax payer's money, especially in a pluralistic democracy, but not otherwise. If a faith based school is a self-funded and teaching lie, who is the government to step in, unless they are encouraging and advocating their students to break laws? Telling lies by itself is not illegal, unless you are under oath. And when their students commit crimes, are they not dealt with properly under a secular constitution and law, all be it not always to our liking? Do their schools not come under more scrutiny? Are they not chastised at the very least? In short does their freedom not get compromised when they try to use it to spread fear? And more importantly, do we not use the freedom given by our laws to corrode their faith? We are already doing it now.
Dogmas are defeated in a society that encourages free discourse. When you defeat one dogma by creating a situation where another can exist, you have in effect not solved the fundamental issue, which is the tendency of people to fall for dogmas.
Let the faith-based schools continue to exist if they can pay for themselves. Let free discourse, argument and debate continue unhindered. The rational ideas will win out. The will become part of the way we do commerce, influence the way we build our industry, the way we practice medicine and further research. When society becomes dependent on facts, the faithful will be forced to shed their dogmas. The self-funded faith based will close, or they will change, because their system of education can no longer produce individuals who can become members of the society they live in.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
32. Comment #79796 by Janus on October 18, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Discourse != EducationThe right to speak the most ridiculous nonsense is one thing, the right of institutions to teach this ridiculous nonsense to children is another.
Other Comments by Janus
33. Comment #79797 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 2:57 pm
28. Comment #79791 by GoldyDo you where the debate between Dawkins and Milton in 1995 can be found? I clicked on Plaster's link, but don't trust the bias. I don't think it was Milton after all. He is just a journo. So now, I am not sure what debate Plaster is referring to. Bugger!
I have seen posts by WML before - he's not bad, is he:-)
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
34. Comment #79799 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Martin SWhat about the human rights of the child? The right to grow up with a clear and unpolluted mind devoid of the reason suppressing virus of faith.
What is your proposal then? Confiscate the child from his parents just because they try to pass on their values and traditions and send the child to a foster home?
Why stop at religion? There are other forms of irrationalities as well? Do parents have to pass a rationality test before they are allowed to raise children?
You sound like a totalitarian.
Other Comments by Bonzai
35. Comment #79800 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 3:03 pm
This guy"http://www.alternativescience.com/"
is an idiot. I'm sorry, but he is. He doesn't know what he's talking about. You don't even need to know a lot about evolution (just a little) to notice that he's full of sh... You know.
Other Comments by SilentMike
36. Comment #79801 by NJS on October 18, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The main problem in the UK wouldn't be "this government" - modern politicians unfortunately give the masses what they want and there is a notion which is not fought that "faith school=good school". I also think that a lot of modern parents don't really "care" about the truth enough to make a stand like this - they would consider the perceived good results, even at the cost of mild brainwashing, to be worth it. Its sad to say but the modern world has made too many people pragmatic rather than principled.Other Comments by NJS
37. Comment #79803 by Henri Bergson on October 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Proud to be Swedish once again. Quite astonishing really, considering the general extreme PCness of Sweden.It must be the new conservative government that was elected in last year.
Now do this in England.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
38. Comment #79804 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 3:07 pm
V, you quoted:See here to see how the great rationalist and defender of free speech reacted when anyone had the temerity to point out the falsehoods in his own creation myth .
Here is a wiki entry for Richard Milton, the gentleman in question. The wiki article provides links to Dawkins' and other people's review of Milton's book and other material. Enjoy. Just don't choke on your morning coffee or evening wine. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Milton_(scientific_researcher)#_note-1
Other Comments by Bonzai
39. Comment #79806 by IanG on October 18, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Interesting and encouraging. The Swedish government is to be congratulated.I strongly suspect that, if this issue were to be raised in the UK, the government here would say that it was impossible because their hands were tied by EU law on human rights that would prohibit such action.
Unfortunately our government does seem to take a perverse pleasure in justifying any position it takes these days by claiming bizarre interpretations of EU law as matters of inarguable fact.
Tony Blair's response to Muslim complaints of harrassment and discrimination in the wake of terror attacks and inflammatory Islamic rhetoric was to assure everyone that he kept the Koran by his bedside and read it regularly.
When challenged on the subject of teaching Creationism in schools he said that diversity in the curriculum and good results against government targets were what we should be looking at.
The BBC has reported within the last few weeks that teachers in the UK are now nervous about teaching Darwin and Evolution because they are being warned that such teaching may risk being taken as offensive to Muslim school children and as being an infringement of their human rights.
How easy is it to move to Sweden?
Other Comments by IanG
40. Comment #79808 by Goldy on October 18, 2007 at 3:17 pm
V, I have no idea where this debate is - I even tried googling the debate but nothing...well, nothing concrete :-) I have a sneaky suspicion it is all in his mind....Other Comments by Goldy
41. Comment #79809 by BAEOZ on October 18, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Bonzai I had a look at that link you posted for V. The bit about being ancephalic and still being able to think cracked me up! I guess that explains creationists :) Other Comments by BAEOZ
42. Comment #79811 by Henri Bergson on October 18, 2007 at 3:24 pm
IanG,But Sweden is also in the EU.
---
It's time to kick out this malicious Arab dark age mythology from Europe.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
43. Comment #79812 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 3:27 pm
38. Comment #79804 by BonzaiThanks for the link. I'll make sure Quet's teapot is well out of reach:-) while I find this debate.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
44. Comment #79813 by Goldy on October 18, 2007 at 3:30 pm
V, you'll like this :-)http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1992-08-28shattering_the_myths.shtml
Edit - and he mentions Immanuel Velikovsky! Cracking author! Loved his World's in Collision! Venus and Mars collide in near history :-) Lovely stuff! Have it at home.
Other Comments by Goldy
45. Comment #79815 by Quine on October 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I just ran across this interesting blog about religion and child abuse. Anyone know about this one? It has a pointer to a recent JW transfusion case in Ireland. Other Comments by Quine
46. Comment #79816 by Sinbad on October 18, 2007 at 3:47 pm
All the applause for the Swedes is a good reminder of how often people want freedom for themselves but not for others. The only difference between them and people like Karl Rove is the practical policy, not the theory, and that's terrifying. If those in power can dictate what (real or supposed) truths and values are taught in private schools parents pay for and are imparted to their children, the freedoms of religion, expression and association are essentially meaningless. What's to stop those in power not just from mandating that (say) YEC be taught not just in public schools, but in private schools as well? The totalitarian and authoritarian tendencies of the Left remain as hideously intact as ever. Other Comments by Sinbad
47. Comment #79817 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Hahaha.Goldy, Bonzai - I clicked an external link at the bottom of wiki's page on Richard Milton and was taken to a page that lists a debate between Richard Milton and Jim Foley.
Here's how the link described it:
The following debate on the evidence for human evolution took place in a small email discussion group.
Jim Foley is the author of the Fossil Hominids pages at the talk.origins web site.
Richard Milton is the author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (1997). (He is an anti-evolutionist rather than a creationist, but his arguments are similar to those of many creationists.)
Nothing to do with Richard Dawkins (except that their first names are the same and their surnames are bi-syllabic). Now, I can't be sure that this is the debate that Plaskett mentions. I have posted him asking for a link to the debate he bangs on about. We'll see:-).
Mind you, RD's review in 1992 of Milton's book is scathing to say the least. So is Robert Todd Carroll's. No wonder Milton was miffed, but hey, that was 15 years ago. We have moved on.
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
48. Comment #79819 by knutsondc on October 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Here in the USA, it would be very difficult to forbid private schools from teaching religious doctrine as "true" without tripping over the First Amendment to our Constitution.Attendance at an accredited school (or the equivalent) is mandatory for children in every state, however, and it is perfectly legal for a state to establish accreditation standards and minimum school graduation requirements for all schools, public or private. The state could require minimum amounts of education in science, history, etc., and deny credit against those requirements to courses that teach religious doctrines as "true." The state couldn't constitutionally forbid a private school from offering courses that are purely religious indoctrination, but those classes would necessarily have to be in addition to those needed to meet graduation standards.
In a similar vein, colleges and universities can make their contribution. The University of California, for example, has minimum admission requirements for undergraduates that include prescribed amounts of high school science. UC has refused to recognize as "science" classes offered in some fundamentalist Christian high schools.
Other Comments by knutsondc
49. Comment #79821 by NJS on October 18, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Sinbad:I can understand your concern but surely there are some "absolute" truths we can agree on. Other subjects like Maths, History and Geography have basic tenets which are pretty much undeniable.
I think the aim of this legislation as I understand it would be to cover such undeniable "facts" pertaining to religion. I can't see how any sane person could object to making the teaching of a 6000 year old earth a no-no.
I think things like this are a long way from a direction you seem to be implying of a political dogma covering any subject being regarded as "fact".
Other Comments by NJS
50. Comment #79822 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 4:07 pm
46. Comment #79816 by SinbadOK you have a point. But surely you can see the "damned if we do and damned if we don't" dilemma here. How do you fight a monster without becoming one? How do you protect freedom, from both terrorists and fundamentalists from within, without opressing freedom?
Where's your line?
Other Comments by SilentMike
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson
"By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none."
Charlie Chaplin
"Group selection of any kind is not Darwinism as Darwin understood it nor as I understand it."
Richard Dawkins
"No Gods -- No Masters."
Margaret Sanger
"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."
Bertrand Russell
Other Recommended Reading
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
Kluge
Gary Marcus
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R. Prothero
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #79749 by Big T on October 18, 2007 at 12:23 pm
It sounds like a good idea to me.Other Comments by Big T