Is Sweden an evil nation?

There's no need to throw away our civil liberties. Plain old law enforcement is working pretty well against terrorism in England and Spain.

 

I think I was referring more to the thread's title, which sounds like a moral judgment. It's kind of a pet peeve of mine.

Yes, we all make moral judgments every day (even the anti-religious), but real debate on any issue isn't possible if we feel free to demonize those who have a different perspective or moral judgment. How much freedom can a free society give those who would destroy it? How much freedom does a free society give up before it becomes an unfree society? How do we separate those who disagree with our principles, from those who would destroy those principles? Our debate on these issues is important, but we need to think the best of those we disagree.

 

You didn't like my answer?
You have me curious about your 'higher ideals' comment. Care to elaborate?

 

What should be taught are truths found in nature, logic and evidence. With a clear indication of what is evidence and what is opinion.

There is no higher ideal than a "purely secular approach to life". Any other ideal is either wishful thinking or fantasy, regardless of how it makes you feel. I consider my secular ideals to be pretty high, thank you very much.

 

Now that you have decided that the lessons being taught were fraudulent, what would be your next action? Or what should be Sweden's next action?

What things was Jesus teaching that would not lead to better living? (Again, not a religion question from me, but one that a church school parent would want to know that justifies any action above.)

Many church schools focus on theology (usually of no interest to me). Some church schools focus on setting high moral values. For example, giving kids lessons like "Jesus said to treat others as you would want to be treated" and leaving the theology out of it. Having two kids sent to a Lutheran elementary school (for the better teaching, not to indoctrinate) I was surprised at how very restrained the "theology" was, and how focused it was on basic education and common sense behavior expectations.

 

I do not have any issue with your position and I do not want to come across as being negative, but that really is an opinion, not a fact you can prove. (And I am fully aware that I have an opinion, not facts. That's why my focus is on what the human actions are in this discussion not the religion issues.)

 

I don't understand how it's possible to teach about Jesus - again, that phrase 'as if it were real' seems to apply - while leaving the theology out of it.

 

That's because the definition of 'Theology' is seen from different viewpoints. A great many people consider Jesus to have been a real person who actually tried to teach people to be considerate and caring. A great many people consider any mention of Jesus to be fanaticism. I'm not here stating that there is a correct viewpoint. When a school teaches about Jesus, it could be from either viewpoint. I am stating that any government (Swedish or US) officially declaring one of these viewpoints to be correct will lead to more problems created than solved.

 

Thank you. Then we are agreed on the point of most concern to me.

Teaching the golden rule is not a fraud, it's an admonishment to be nice to others. Therefore I have no problem with "church" schools teaching that. My objection is strictly to teaching untruths as if they were truths, and teaching beliefs as if they were facts.

Why is Jesus relevant to this? Jesus taught some very radical ideas (rejection of established religious authority, absolute and unconditional pacifism, total voluntary poverty, absolute submission to those who do evil to you, etc.) but no mainstream churches, and only a few fringe movements respect and promote these teachings. Mainstream and fundamentalist churches bring Jesus into the discussion as a supernatural manifestation of god and as an object of irrational belief without evidence. All the good stuff Jesus taught can be found in atheist Buddhism and in many of the Eastern philosophies that apparently served Jesus as sources. It is not necessary to preach Jesus as the christ in order to teach positive values.

Again, what I object to here is teaching beliefs (i.e. that Jesus was god) as if they were facts. And except for universalists and a few fringe sects, church teachings about Jesus always bring in threats of everlasting torture.

The ELCA is pretty liberal, but the Missouri Synod Lutherans go in for all-out hell-fire and brimstone. But even the ELCA, in its low-key way, keeps the threat of hell alive, even if it puts it on the back burner.

We really know very little about the historical Jesus. And why does the person of Jesus matter unless you are going to make the false claim that he was a god? You can teach good moral values without reference to the founding figure of one particular religion. In fact, since we are trying to instill values that we consider universal (the golden rule) it would be better to leave mythology and theology and specific religious traditions out of it. How would you, as a Christian, feel, if the schools were promoting the Yoruba diety Ochun as the final authority on morality, with the overt or subliminal message that only by believing in Ochun could your child achieve salvation after death?

All the good stuff Jesus taught is rejected by our society as "unrealistic," in favor of Paul's admonition to believe in supernatural nonsense about Jesus. So lets dump all religion out of our schools and teach morality as good citizenship rather than as a means of inducing an invisible man in the sky to give us candy (or virgins) in the afterlife.

 

This has nothing to do with differing definitions or viewpoints of Theology. Rather, this is simply about teaching facts over absolute conjecture in the public school setting. Moreover, when that conjecture has the potential to harm, like religion, it is even more important to teach logic and truth over fable.

Sweden has taken the lead on this, and others will follow soon.

... Brad

 

There was that agreement from the outset.

Again, agreement. But then then the tricky point is what if a church school teaches beliefs as beliefs within this church school. Some actually do this. Many don't. For example, if a very young kid asks, "Why do I need to be nice to the different kid?" Many church schools will give sickening answers. In some cases an answer of "Jesus teaches us to treat others nicely" is given. (Remember we are talking about 6 year olds, not PhDs). I have a hard time considering this response a case of the last statement above.

But then what if a church school wants to promote these positive teachings as part of their church curriculum? I will agree with the quote "It is not necessary to preach Jesus as the christ in order to teach positive values." BUT I cannot come up with a good reason that the Swedish government should ban the school if the school does attribute positive values as Jesus's teachings.

A church school can teach moral lessons without refering to Jesus....but then it is no longer a church school. A state mandated requirement that the moral lessons of Jesus that must have Jesus sanitized out of the lesson is needless state interference.

I'm all for leaving the garbage out. I'm not for the state being the ultimate arbitrator of what is to be considered garbage.

But what if a church school is doing this? (i.e. remove the nonsense and get back to focusing on the good stuff.) Why should they be lumped in with the others?

 

Because no one knows for sure what Jesus said or even if he existed at all. If you teach something based on "Jesus said" you are by definition not teaching facts.

 

No, it is in the church school setting that we are discussing. Read the article carefully.

 

Your definition. If I state, "Jesus says in the New Testament passage Mark .....," I would contend that I have been very factual.

 

I disagree. With all due respect, FL, you seem to be confusing 'Jesus' and 'fact.' I respect your right to hold and express your views, and I appreciate this thread being civil, but the bible is not a factual document.

 

I apologize for coming late to this party, but now that I'm here I have to confess that this really got under my skin.

I honestly believe that it is true that you are faithfully quoting a biblical passage, and are in that respect “factually” reporting what you've read. The issue is that accurately quoting written words does not make the content of the words themselves factual. Unfortunately, it’s been my experience that this distinction is very often lost when talking about religion in education. Further, it seems that all too often some religious “educators” deliberately confuse the two kinds of factuality; this is the same “it must be true because I read it somewhere” philosophy that we deride in other portions of this forum.

The plain fact of the matter is that no one can "prove" any of the content in the bible. Those that I have encountered throughout my travels who have offered biblical proofs all base them on faith; somewhere in the foundation of the "proof" there's something that they just believe.

IMHO, this is what Swedes were trying legislate against; the intentional confusion that is often perpetrated between factual quotation of religious doctrine and its "factual" content. They are simply saying that not only do you have to be able to demonstrate that you got the quote right, but that you can demonstrate the factual character of the content as well.

That doesn't make them "evil".

 

Responding mostly to FL:

There are two separate lines here: What Sweden has done, and what I advocate, so I don't want to confuse the two.

Much of what you are advocating remains legal in Sweden. Teaching of moral values, and even teaching beliefs as beliefs (rather than as "facts") in private religious schools has not been banned. The only thing Sweden has banned is teaching beliefs as though they were facts. Thus you cannot tell a child in school "Jesus died for your sins," or "Mohammed is the prophet of god." But you can teach a child "In our faith we believe that Jesus died for your sins," or "In our faith we believe that Mohammed was the prophet of god."

I take a line more akin to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris: I regard religion as an unmitigated evil, and while I will follow Amnesty International in respecting people's basic human right to believe crap, I advocate the right of children to be protected from the emotional abuse they suffer when they are threatened with everlasting fire if they do not believe the complicated construct of lies which is religion.

I do not dispute that some liberal religions teach positive values and that this is a good thing. But I assert that it is always harmful to teach lies, and religion is by definition a lie.

On a bit of a tangent, I am deeply offended as a taxpayer that churches are tax-exempt. Churches exist primarily for the purpose of extorting money from gullible members, by threatening them with torment and/or promising them pie in the sky when they die, and for such a corrupt and fraudulent business to be exempt from taxes is one of the more remarkable pieces of lunacy in our society.

 

I'm trying hard to get a point across. That point has little to do with what is factual and what is fraud. That is a debate that will never end. The focus was on a government self appointing itself as the ultimate arbitrator of deciding the factual/fraud boundry.....for church schools (not public schools). I do believe the government does have a responsibility to protect the young from abuse and protecting the population from murders using churches as recruiting places, but a great many good churchs and church schools believe this too. They are not the problem.

No disagreement, but that is a side issue. I just do not see where this justifies government interjection directly into ALL church schools because some educators get confused.

So how do I prove that treating others as I would like to be treated is factual?

I hope it has not gone unnoticed that virtually all the political discussion one can tune into would never meet an absolute standard of fact/fraud for teaching in school. Yet I do not want to government being the absolute arbitrator of what one can say, post, or teach. Quite a few want to apply a standard that some sciences cannot meet. (e.g. The big bang theory is faith when quantum gravity calculations are needed.) The examples I keep giving are NOT impressing a theology, they are showing that there are lots of points that just do not fall cleanly into a fact or fraud bucket.

 

Thank you for the quote "I do not dispute that some liberal religions teach positive values and that this is a good thing." Hopefully it is clear that I detest the teaching of sick theology and lies as well. But I do not classify everything under the banner of religion as lie, just a whole lot. And as far as tax breaks go, I have no position.