A possible solution to the threat of Islam

[galtgulch]

>>>"Swedish government - it’s illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true.

Written by Jack Carlson on 25 August 2008 – 3:05 pm

Courtesy of 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.

It’s good to see a few governments brave enough to take a stand against supernatural thinking being presented as established fact. Theists demand we accept their opinions as fact without feeling compelled to offer any sort of credible evidence to support their claims.

Sweden has issued a challenge with this law; if theists want their beliefs to be taught as fact, provide as much proof as science has for evolution or gravity."<<<

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; With this post you have raced the sewer.

While I consider the ideas of Islam awful. It is their trying to put these ideas into practice that must be stopped.

I guess that Ron Paul lost has finally sunk in.

Thomas Jefferson talked about reason combating bad ideas. He also went after the Barbary Pirates, an early example of Militant Islam.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[BaalChatzaf]

>>>"Swedish government - it’s illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true.

Written by Jack Carlson on 25 August 2008 – 3:05 pm

Courtesy of 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.

It’s good to see a few governments brave enough to take a stand against supernatural thinking being presented as established fact. Theists demand we accept their opinions as fact without feeling compelled to offer any sort of credible evidence to support their claims.

Sweden has issued a challenge with this law; if theists want their beliefs to be taught as fact, provide as much proof as science has for evolution or gravity."<<<

Many would prefer this to having the Swedish version of Saint Bartholomew’s Day.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Stupid government keeps growing forbidden fruit.

--Brant

[Nicholas Dykes]

>>>"Swedish government - it’s illegal for schools to teach religious doctrine as if it were true.

Written by Jack Carlson on 25 August 2008 – 3:05 pm

Courtesy of 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.

It’s good to see a few governments brave enough to take a stand against supernatural thinking being presented as established fact. Theists demand we accept their opinions as fact without feeling compelled to offer any sort of credible evidence to support their claims.

Sweden has issued a challenge with this law; if theists want their beliefs to be taught as fact, provide as much proof as science has for evolution or gravity."<<<

Galt, congratulations and thanks for posting this. Fascinating and encouraging. I don't read the Guardian, their usual line is left liberal/socialist, but their reporting is occasionally better than anybody's. I did not see any word of this in the Daily Telegraph or Sunday Times. Nicholas Dykes

[algernonsidney]

This really opens up a can of worms. What about teaching history? What happens when someone teaches about the causes of something like the Great Depression? Who decides what is fact and what is not fact? This opens up a can of worms. And what about things like alleged global warming?

This also violates the non-aggression principle.

You can fight ideas with better ideas or with violence--you have no other choice.

[zantonavitch]

"Teaching" religion to children is child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture. All the parents, preachers, and "teachers" who do this need to go directly to jail.

Richard Dawkins essentially argues this too.

[Nicholas Dykes]

This really opens up a can of worms. What about teaching history? What happens when someone teaches about the causes of something like the Great Depression? Who decides what is fact and what is not fact? This opens up a can of worms. And what about things like alleged global warming?

This also violates the non-aggression principle.

You can fight ideas with better ideas or with violence--you have no other choice.

Chris, I wasn't ~approving~ of the Swedish action. I agree with you, fight ideas with ideas. I will shortly be announcing a different sort of initiative vis-a-vis Islam. Nicholas.

[Brant Gaede]

"Teaching" religion to children is child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture. All the parents, preachers, and "teachers" who do this need to go directly to jail.

Richard Dawkins essentially argues this too.

Better than your police state.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

How do you enforce what gets said in a private faith classroom? One way or another, it gets done.

[zantonavitch]

Better than your police state.

--Brant

Brant: That's a non sequitur. I favor a free state. One without child abuse. Do you claim "teaching" religion is not child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture? How terrible do the lies and mental pain inflicted on the defenseless innocent have to be, before you would protect the rights of the children?

[Chris Grieb]

Last Post by Kyrel. I could not disagree more.

I believe that only physical child abuse should be dealt with by the state.

I would point that since Objectivists and atheists are a minority a strongly religious state or city might very well declare that raising children with religious training is child abuse.

[Barbara Branden]

Kyrel: "'Teaching' religion to children is child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture. All the parents, preachers, and 'teachers' who do this need to go directly to jail."

And a great many people would say that "'Teaching Objectivism to children is child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture. All the parents, preachers, and 'teachers' who do this need to go directly to jail."

If only "truth" may be taught, who is to be the arbiter? You?

A hallmark of dictatorship is precisely the enforcement of the doctrine that only "the truth" may be written or taught -- the truth that the Supreme Arbiter, the dictator, lays down, such as National Socialism, or Communism, or Islamic fundamentalism. In Nazi Germany, their jails --to which the parents, preachers, and teachers who taught untruths were sent -- were called concentration camps.

Barbara

[Mindy Newton]

Last Post by Kyrel. I could not disagree more.

I believe that only physical child abuse should be dealt with by the state.

I would point that since Objectivists and atheists are a minority a strongly religious state or city might very well declare that raising children with religious training is child abuse.

Emotional abuse of children should not be ignored. It is much harder to discover, and to prove, but it is a legitimate concern of the justice system.

= Mindy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well...

We could set up a truth for minors committee to set guidelines...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Better than your police state.

--Brant

Brant: That's a non sequitur. I favor a free state. One without child abuse. Do you claim "teaching" religion is not child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture? How terrible do the lies and mental pain inflicted on the defenseless innocent have to be, before you would protect the rights of the children?

It's not a non-sequitur; I used the same sized caps as you did.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Better than your police state.

--Brant

Brant: That's a non sequitur. I favor a free state. One without child abuse. Do you claim "teaching" religion is not child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture? How terrible do the lies and mental pain inflicted on the defenseless innocent have to be, before you would protect the rights of the children?

Here's an actual non-sequitur, quoting you on SOLOP on 9/11:

"I want those most responsible for 9/11 to pay dearly. At the least, I want the fundamentalist leaders -- and the leading fundamentalist mosques and madrasses -- of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran smart-bombed to holy hell. And I really want it to happen today."

I left SOLOP because of this genocidal, stupid crap two years ago. Please go away and don't come back. You stink up the joint.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Better than your police state.

--Brant

Brant: That's a non sequitur. I favor a free state. One without child abuse. Do you claim "teaching" religion is not child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture? How terrible do the lies and mental pain inflicted on the defenseless innocent have to be, before you would protect the rights of the children?

I was brought up Jewish and it did me no harm. At a certain age I jettisoned the supernatural nonsense and retained the ethics. What were the ethics I learned? Respect for the lives and property of others. You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself. This is an ethical system devoid of altruism.

I should point out that Rand and most of the original Objectivists were brought up Jewish too. Did that harm them?

As long as religious doctrine is taught as doxa (greek for opinion) the State has absolutely no business in interfering with the teaching of such doctrine. When the State decides that one opinion is harmful and another is just fine, we are in for a lot of pain.

If you don't like someone's opinion pay no attention to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Nicholas Dykes]

Better than your police state.

--Brant

Brant: That's a non sequitur. I favor a free state. One without child abuse. Do you claim "teaching" religion is not child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture? How terrible do the lies and mental pain inflicted on the defenseless innocent have to be, before you would protect the rights of the children?

I was brought up Jewish and it did me no harm. At a certain age I jettisoned the supernatural nonsense and retained the ethics. What were the ethics I learned? Respect for the lives and property of others. You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself. This is an ethical system devoid of altruism.

I should point out that Rand and most of the original Objectivists were brought up Jewish too. Did that harm them?

As long as religious doctrine is taught as doxa (greek for opinion) the State has absolutely no business in interfering with the teaching of such doctrine. When the State decides that one opinion is harmful and another is just fine, we are in for a lot of pain.

If you don't like someone's opinion pay no attention to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, I've been meaning to ask, no offence intended; but what does 'Ba'al Chatzaf' mean, or refer to? I thought Baal was some ancient heathen deity. Best, Nicholas.

[Dragonfly]

Baal! Gib uns Antwort!

[Alfonso Jones]

Better than your police state.

--Brant

Brant: That's a non sequitur. I favor a free state. One without child abuse. Do you claim "teaching" religion is not child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture? How terrible do the lies and mental pain inflicted on the defenseless innocent have to be, before you would protect the rights of the children?

Kyrel -

So, what do you advocate? Someone (you? the government?) decides what truth is, and has the legal right to prosecure parents who teach anything contrary to that to their children? Perhaps even to prosecute any parent who FAILS to aggressively teach/catechize their children in those "truths" decided by you or the government?

Oh, my!

Bill P (Alfonso)

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal! Gib uns Antwort!

It means master of cheekiness. Master of chutzpah.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[zantonavitch]

Kyrel: "'Teaching' religion to children is child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture. All the parents, preachers, and 'teachers' who do this need to go directly to jail."

And a great many people would say that "'Teaching Objectivism to children is child abuse, brain-washing, and psychological torture. All the parents, preachers, and 'teachers' who do this need to go directly to jail."

If only "truth" may be taught, who is to be the arbiter? You?

A hallmark of dictatorship is precisely the enforcement of the doctrine that only "the truth" may be written or taught -- the truth that the Supreme Arbiter, the dictator, lays down, such as National Socialism, or Communism, or Islamic fundamentalism. In Nazi Germany, their jails --to which the parents, preachers, and teachers who taught untruths were sent -- were called concentration camps.

Barbara

Always nice to hear from you, Barbara! A treat, actually. Now...

It doesn't really matter what "a great many people" say. We live in the Dark Ages, by my reckoning, so a great many people today are ignorant and foolish. But only the actual, neutral, objective truth matters in judging whether or not someone is guilty of the crime of child abuse. And "the arbiter" of what this truth is, is reality and the real world. I don't think it all that difficult to gauge whether or not an overwhelmingly vulnerable kid is being indoctrinated and mentally poisoned by some ideology. Instilling false and evil ideas into defenseless children is very different from attempting to do so to potentially powerful, thinking, intelligent, rational adults.

Ultimately, I think this issue goes back to the history of early Objectivism. With all due respect, I truly think the leading Objectivists of the Golden Era (of which you were one) somewhat missed the boat on the issue of the broad and deep evil of "god." And the problem remains with us to this day.

Religion seems to be a greater horror and damager to the Individual and his society than most early Objectivist intellectuals supposed. And it was and is a phenomenon more pervasive and present in American society than you guys supposed, in my view.

It's easy enough to see why Rand, Nathaniel, yourself, Greenspan, Peikoff, and others evidently made a certain decision, and somewhat avoided this cultural and philosophical issue. You guys were battling heroically, and trying to slay a hundred different intellectual dragons at once. You didn't need or want another. Especially such a well-established and unshakeable one.

This issue (perhaps!) could also have been reasonably put off, for strategic reasons. Still, I wonder...

Is it possible, Barbara, you could share with us the thinking of the early Objectivists on this? I'd love to hear anything you have to say on the subject. I'd be especially interested in hearing about any disputes in the 1950s and 1960s as to how important religion was, and how great a menace to humanity, and how hostile to the essence and future ascent of Objectivism.

[Brant Gaede]

It's a very short step from bombing mosques and madrasses to bombing churches and schools. It's also a short step from the philosophy to the religion of Objectivism, or whatever it might come to be called by the rulers.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Kyrel; As I have said I don't think you get it.

In the Basic Principles course Nathaniel Branden gave a lecture (#4) that was called the lecture on "GOD". Nathaniel Branden talked about the bad effects of using faith in your thinking process.

Barbara Branden in her course, Principles of Efficient Thinking, repeated these warnings.

Ayn Rand when she returned to public lectures gave a lecture called "Faith & Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World."

Note the title of the lecture Ayn Rand attacks in the title religion and the use of political power.

The title of Miss Rand's lectures means to me that she would be totally opposed to your ideas that religious parents should have their children removed. I must say that the only way I could support is in the case of actual physical harm. I also think that people can sort out many of the bad religious ideas as adults and reject them.