NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:

"Every citizen shall be guaranteed the following rights and freedoms in his relations with the public institutions:

1. freedom of expression: that is, the freedom to communicate information and express thoughts, opinions and sentiments, whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way;

2. freedom of information: that is, the freedom to procure and receive information and otherwise acquaint oneself with the utterances of others;

3. freedom of assembly: that is, the freedom to organise or attend a meeting for the purposes of information or the expression of opinion or for any other similar purpose, or for the purpose of presenting artistic work;

4. freedom to demonstrate: that is, the freedom to organise or take part in a demonstration in a public place;

5. freedom of association: that is, the freedom to associate with others for public or private purposes;

6. freedom of worship: that is, the freedom to practise one’s religion alone or in the company of others."

As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

Since you state that it is covered in the other 5 points, how can it be discriminatory?

It seems to be stating a specific example of the other 5 combined, so I guess it could be considered superfluous.

However, the fact that someone(Swedish Humanist Association) felt the need to debate this, suggests to me that Sweden has nothing interesting going on.

My thoughts:

Shove your religion bashing bullshit up your ass.

That is all.

My thoughts:

Stop by at your topic in Moderation whenever you want.

*shakes head sadly*

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

My thoughts:

Shove your religion bashing bullshit up your ass.

That is all.

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

No, Freedom of Worship should stay. I can't speak for Sweden, but the freedom of worship clause in the 1st Amendment is probably the only think that's prevented Protestant Christianity from being the only denomination here in the States.

This is not a thread about the USA or its constitution.

He was making a comparison. People in Sweden are not a separate species. Therefore, it does make some sense to compare what happened in one country to what happened in another. Whether or not it is an entirely relevant comparison is up for debate.

Since you state that it is covered in the other 5 points, how can it be discriminatory?

Positively. It seems to send a signal that religious opinions are somehow special, more worthy of special protection than other opinions.

It seems to be stating a specific example of the other 5 combined, so I guess it could be considered superfluous.

However, the fact that someone(Swedish Humanist Association) felt the need to debate this, suggests to me that Sweden has nothing interesting going on.

Or that Sweden has the capacity and attention span to discuss a myriad of topics in the sphere of public debate and that what some find more interesting than others is irrelevant to that.

No, Freedom of Worship should stay. I can't speak for Sweden, but the freedom of worship clause in the 1st Amendment is probably the only think that's prevented Protestant Christianity from being the only denomination here in the States.

This is not a thread about the USA or its constitution.

That worship does not always fall into the catagories of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and/or association

How does it not?

Thoughts?

That worship does not always fall into the catagories of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and/or association

This is true. I'm speaking from personal experience in my own country why it might be a good idea for Sweden to keep that clause.

How would that be relevant to Sweden?

Tell me, does Sweden have an anti-holocaust denial law? This is relevant, trust me.

No, Sweden does not have an anti-holocaust denial law.

This is not a thread about the USA or its constitution.

This is true. I'm speaking from personal experience in my own country why it might be a good idea for Sweden to keep that clause. Tell me, does Sweden have an anti-holocaust denial law? This is relevant, trust me.

How does it not?

I wish to light a menorah in my home, by myself, then engage in private, solitary, meditation and prayer (hypothetically). With that in mind:

What information, thoughts, opinions and sentiments am I expressing orally, pictorially, in writing or in any other way, and who have I communicated them to?

What information am I procuring and receiving and from whom?

What meeting am I organizing and/or attending for the purposes of obtaining information and/or expressing opinion, and with whom?

Where and in what way have I organized and/or taken part in a demonstration in a public place, and what public place?

With whom have I associated with, and for what purposes?

He was making a comparison.

One that doesn't stand because the Swedish constitution and political system is completely different from the one in the USA and what he said would have no applicability to Swedish circumstances.

People in Sweden are not a separate species. Therefore, it does make some sense to compare what happened in one country to what happened in another. Whether or not it is an entirely relevant comparison is up for debate.

And I did not start this thread on the topic of the USA and its constitution, so I would kindly like for it not to derail this thread.

How would that be relevant to Sweden?



No, Sweden does not have an anti-holocaust denial law.

Or you can be caustic. That's always a lovely option. Though, without an anti-holocaust law like much of the rest of Europe, my example is pretty much useless...

What information, thoughts, opinions and sentiments am I expressing orally, pictorially, in writing or in any other way, and who have I communicated them to?

You have expressed an opinion and a sentiment through an action in "any other way" - there is no requirement in the constitution that they have to be communicated to anyone to be expressed. Thus your action of lighting a menorah is perfectly protected by the freedom of expression, rendering the rest of your post irrelevant since it need only be protected by one of those to be protected, and it is. Not to mention of course that there is a myriad of protections to the act of lighting a candle for any purpose, and that a religious motivation should add no special protection. It should be protected like the rest of the reasons are.

and I disagree, since I interpret "expression" to inherently require a second party to express to.

Your "interpretation" is semantically wrong and thus nonsensical, completely negating your "argument".

You can't express something to yourself, by yourself.

Of course you can and countless precedent as well as common sense and the meaning of the word support that one can indeed.

One that doesn't stand because the Swedish constitution and political system is completely different from the one in the USA and what he said would have no applicability to Swedish circumstances.



And I did not start this thread on the topic of the USA and its constitution, so I would kindly like for it not to derail this thread.

Yeah, well, suck it up champ, because the comparison was valid. The freedom to worship clause isn't about protecting your ability to worship, that is to say protect your ability to do it, but to protect your ability to do it by choice. In fact it is more relevant in Sweden because you have a state church. The inclusion of the freedom of worship is to protect the state church from becoming a mandatory church. It's related to our clause and thus an apt comparison, especially since your state church still exists. Freedom to worship includes freedom not to worship, and specifically not having to worship at something like a state church. That's why it gets special mention and thats why it ought to stay. We both have them for shockingly similar reasons. I know, makes you all itchy. Don't care.

there is no requirement in the constitution that they have to be communicated to anyone to be expressed.

and I disagree, since I interpret "expression" to inherently require a second party to express to. You can't express something to yourself, by yourself.

And since differing interpretation is always possible in a statutory scheme, if you intent to afford a particular act a protection, it is always best to explicitly state that protection, and not hope that someone will interpret it into existances through other statements of other similar, but not necessarily the same, rights.

Ergo the clause fulfills its purpose nicely.

I agree with your argument until you suggested removing the freedom. Removing something that big would no doubt be a massive waste of time and money that could be devoted to something more useful. The freedom doesn't actually harm or hinder anyone. Yes, it seems like religious are getting extra consideration, but are they really?

Aesthetics just doesn't seem like enough reason to remove a freedom. And who knows, it might actually come in handy one day: you can always find loopholes if you look hard enough.

countless precedent

Which I'm sure you have onhand to back up your argument, right?

I would say it should stay, because Neo Art is right. Regardless of my personal opinions about religion or some sort of religious belief, people should still have that protected in a constitution, because otherwise the law will always be manipulated to serve the majority religion, at the expense of everyone else, including--and probably especially--atheists.

I would, however, rewrite it:

"The right to worship or to not worship and otherwise hold whatever religious or areligious beliefs one wishes."

Yeah, well, suck it up champ, because the comparison was valid.

Nope.

The freedom to worship clause isn't about protecting your ability to worship, that is to say protect your ability to do it, but to protect your ability to do it by choice.

Nothing that isn't already protected by the five other ones, and of course by the stated freedom from being compelled to worship, which I shall come to soon...

In fact it is more relevant in Sweden because you have a state church.

No, we don't. So I'll edit those bits from your post as irrelevant and thus not pay them notice.

Freedom to worship includes freedom not to worship,

Nope, it does not include it in the Swedish constitution and here is where I return to it - the Swedish constitution has a special clause for that:

"Art. 2. Every citizen shall be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any coercion to divulge an opinion in a political, religious, cultural or other such connection. He shall furthermore be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, or to belong to a political association, religious community or other association for opinion referred to in sentence one."

and specifically not having to worship at something like a state church. That's why it gets special mention and thats why it ought to stay. We both have them for shockingly similar reasons. I know, makes you all itchy.

Don't care.

You also don't seem to know very much about the Swedish constitution or the Swedish political system (especially as you seem to have imagined us having a state church) - I don't care. This is however a thread to discuss it and you may end up learning something if you were to just not try to derail the thread to being about something irrelevant.

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

I'm not convinced of it's necessity either when reading the other 5 and I have to say that it's a simple and direct text. I like that.

If I had to play devil's advocate here, it's necessary because while the first five guarantee freedoms, they don't limit government's power. Let me give you an example: Suppose you had a silly religion where you got together every once in a while to eat special crackers and drink cheap wine. Eating these crackers and drinking this wine might be a very powerful and important act of faith for this particular religion. The first five clauses don't protect people from government halting the manufacture and importation of special crackers. That's why you need the sixth. *nod*

ANd if you'll forgive a brief bout of American Patriotism, one of my favorite details of the COnstitution and Bill of Rights is that it assigns powers to and restricts government. It doesn't guarantee certain rights, it guarantees that the government doesn't have the power and authority to restrict them. I like that a lot. *nod*

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

If you were to do such, there would be a potential for abuse, and frankly, nothing (besides perhaps your pride) is hurt by the inclusion of freedom of worship.

Which I'm sure you have onhand to back up your argument, right?

Of course I do, but can you read rulings in Swedish by the Supreme Court? I very much doubt that, seeing as you can't seem to read the constitution even in English.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

Hmm... Interesting question. My knee-jerk reaction is to say that it should stay because religion tend to be an important factor in most peoples lives, one way or another. But why have that specified if it is consumed by the other rights? I shall ponder this a bit more.

But I must disagree with your view that it's somehow discriminatory, because I view freedom of religion also to include the freedom not to have one - and I do believe I'm in line with the ECHR on that.

Nope, it does not include it in the Swedish constitution and here is where I return to it - the Swedish constitution has a special clause for that:

It doesn't? Hmm... How often is the constitution changed? Is there a kind of constitution conservatism that make politicians reluctant to change it, or does it happen often?

Oh, and more importantly, do you have a link to the text of the constitution? One in english would be good, if you have it :)

It doesn't? Hmm...

Of course. That's why the constitution's article 2, which I quoted, expresses the freedom from worship separately from the freedom of worship. Unlike some constitutions, the Swedish one likes to be

How often is the constitution changed?

In any meaningful way that affects rights and freedoms? Not very often - I recall only one such change directly to the constitution in the last decade and it had to do with adding sexual orientation as a protected class from "hets mot folkgrupp". Of course, despite that change the Supreme Court referred to ECHR precedent and basically eviscerated the law it was changed for (the whole Åke Green debacle), so... but to answer you question, rarely. The reason the Humanists wanted to debate this is because a constitutional committee has been started to oversee the constitution and "update" it as was done in the 60s and 70s when it was basically completely rewritten through a process of reform. The results are not likely to be seen from that, though, for at least another decade, I would say.

Oh, and more importantly, do you have a link to the text of the constitution? One in english would be good, if you have it :)

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6357.aspx

On the left you can click through the different parts of the Constitution called Fundamental Laws: "The Instrument of Government, The Act of Succession, The Freedom of the Press Act, The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression".

Nope.



Nothing that isn't already protected by the five other ones, and of course by the stated freedom from being compelled to worship, which I shall come to soon...



No, we don't. So I'll edit those bits from your post as irrelevant and thus not pay them notice.
The Church of Sweden lost it's official 'state' status in 2000, that's hardly 'ancient history. Until 1996 membership was automatic if at least one parent was one.

Seeing as this is rather recent in terms of things.

It seems like you have a very recent and relevant reason to state that freedom explicitly, and it bares a shocking resemblance to our or other similar constitutions.



Nope, it does not include it in the Swedish constitution and here is where I return to it - the Swedish constitution has a special clause for that:
It's a hand in hand thing. And it specifically mentions religion, without its counterpart in the second article it's still open to abuse, and thats why it is there. There is more than one way to coerce, and that includes limiting options to one.





You also don't seem to know very much about the Swedish constitution or the Swedish political system - I don't care. This is however a thread to discuss it and you may end up learning something if you were to just not try to derail the thread to being about something irrelevant.
Except it isn't unless you're stomping your foot and going "NONONONO!" But whatever.

Of course I do, but can you read rulings in Swedish by the Supreme Court? I very much doubt that, seeing as you can't seem to read the constitution even in English.

Wow, nice job avoiding your burden of proof, and then topping it all off with an ad hominem.

I wish to light a menorah in my home, by myself, then engage in private, solitary, meditation and prayer (hypothetically.)

Why should that activity be granted any greater protection than any comparably private activity?

Of course I do, but can you read rulings in Swedish by the Supreme Court? I very much doubt that, seeing as you can't seem to read the constitution even in English.

awww, is that how you respond when someone points out the flaws in your reasoning? Get all pissy and childlike?

Well, par for the course for you really. Here's a hint, if you can't make an argument stand on its own merits, and have to resort to being childish and immature, perhaps it's time to put more strength into your arguments.

Frankly speaking, if the best you can come up with is "nuh uh, it wouldn't happen that way!" when someone points out a potential flaw in your reasoning, it's time to take the whole thing back to the drawing board.

Now I know you're going to come up with something that you think is oh so very clever and witty (despite the fact that nobody seems to agree with you on that point) so let me spare you the effort and just open my window a bit more and let in the sound of road construction.

Both it, and you, seem roughly equal in terms of the noise produced, both in quantity and significance. At least after enduring the sound of road construction I get a better road. I'm unsure yet the positive produced by your insipid blustering.

Why should that activity be granted any greater protection than any comparably private activity?

depends on what you define as "comparably private activity". Is smoking crack in private a comparably private activity?

What comparably private activities that we deem worthy of protection would not otherwise be protected by the others?

awww, is that how you respond when someone points out the flaws in your reasoning?

There was no "flaw" in my reasoning - there was however a flaw in your knowledge of what the word "express" means. But, if you need more to show you how flawed your understanding of the word is (and thus how your "argument" is poppycock), we can look to the constitution directly and I can spare you disappointment from knowing I would not waste the time to translate rulings for you: "freedom of expression" is in Swedish called "yttrandefrihet".

It is usually translated as "freedom of expression" in English as that is the English 'idiom' for it, but consists of "yttrande" and "frihet". "Frihet" means "freedom" and "yttrande" means "utterance" from the verb "yttra", which means "utter, say". Thus in Swedish the freedom ends up being literally "freedom of utterance" or "freedom of saying", and thus even more renders your argument nonsensical than "express" does in English, because "utter" even less so than "express" carries with it the need for it to be "communicated to someone else". So, all you had going for you was semantic ignorance.

depends on what you define as "comparably private activity". Is smoking crack in private a comparably private activity?

No, because it has social costs that religious behavior doesn't.

What comparably private activities that we deem worthy of protection would not otherwise be protected by the others?

Wait, "that we deem worthy of protection"? Way to beg the question.

Why don't you actually respond to what I said? What is it about private religious behavior, specifically, that makes it worthy of particular protection? Why not have a more general right to privacy instead?

If I want to paint a picture, is that less worthy of protection than someone lighting a menorah?

No, because it has social costs that religious behavior doesn't.

Religious behavior doesn't have social costs? o.O

The Church of Sweden lost it's official 'state' status in 2000, that's hardly 'ancient history. Until 1996 membership was automatic if at least one parent was one.

And thus not any more, which makes it utterly irrelevant to the discussion, especially as "freedom of worship" was not what protected Swedes from forced worship, but the actual freedom from worship which is separate in the Swedish constitution. So even if we had had a state church, your argument would be irrelevant to Swedish circumstances as our constitution is not written like yours and does not confuse the matters, making the "argument" that "freedom of worship" is to stay because it protects from coercion simply wrong, because it does not in the Swedish constitution. That it does in the USA one remains irrelevant.

It's a hand in hand thing.

Again, not in the Swedish constitution. Yours may be written thus (and IMO so poorly), but ours isn't so your "comparison" doesn't apply.

There is more than one way to coerce, and that includes limiting options to one.

How lucky then that the constitution bars "any coercion" and not just "one".

Religious behavior doesn't have social costs? o.O

Who said that? I just said that crack has some religious behavior doesn't. And the biggest costs of religious behavior come from more public expressions of religion, which are protected under freedom of association and expression.

Religious behavior doesn't have social costs? o.O

Not in Sweden.

Only in America..
Where we dream in red, white and blue
Only in America
Where we dream as big as we want to
We all get a chance
Everybody gets to dance
Only in America

Yeah only in America
Where we dream in red, white and blue
Yeah we dream as big as we want to....

And thus not any more, which makes it utterly irrelevant to the discussion, especially as "freedom of worship" was not what protected Swedes from forced worship, but the actual freedom from worship which is separate in the Swedish constitution. So even if we had had a state church, your argument would be irrelevant to Swedish circumstances as our constitution is not written like yours and does not confuse the matters, making the "argument" that "freedom of worship" is to stay because it protects from coercion simply wrong, because it does not in the Swedish constitution. That it does in the USA one remains irrelevant.

You make constitutions with considerations to the past. We didn't have a state religion but we came from someplace that did, you had a state religion-both edicts came from the same concern, yours is just more immediately relevant since you had a state church as little as 8 years ago.


Again, not in the Swedish constitution. Yours may be written thus (and IMO so poorly), but ours isn't so your "comparison" doesn't apply.



How lucky then that the constitution bars "any coercion" and not just "one".
Yeah, you don't even buy that. Systematic denial would be a hard sell to fall under article two, which is why article one exists. You're at once complaining that your constitution is too thorough while bragging about how thorough it is.

If I had to play devil's advocate here, it's necessary because while the first five guarantee freedoms, they don't limit government's power. Let me give you an example: Suppose you had a silly religion where you got together every once in a while to eat special crackers and drink cheap wine. Eating these crackers and drinking this wine might be a very powerful and important act of faith for this particular religion. The first five clauses don't protect people from government halting the manufacture and importation of special crackers. That's why you need the sixth. *nod*

The thing is, the sixth point doesn't protect from that either. For instance, kosher slaughter is banned in Sweden.

The thing is, the sixth point doesn’t protect from that either. For instance, kosher slaughter is banned in Sweden.
But not, presumably, importation of kosher meat?

The thing is, the sixth point doesn't protect from that either. For instance, kosher slaughter is banned in Sweden.

Then that's an example of why Sweden would need the sixth point.

But not, presumably, importation of kosher meat?

That has to do with free trade and EU movement of goods.

Then that's an example of why Sweden would need the sixth point.

Sweden already has the sixth point, and it did not protect kosher slaughter, so your comment is quite peculiar. Sweden needs the sixth point to protect something it already doesn't protect? :confused:

You make constitutions with considerations to the past. We didn't have a state religion but we came from someplace that did, you had a state religion-both edicts came from the same concern, yours is just more immediately relevant since you had a state church as little as 8 years ago.

So?

Yeah, you don't even buy that. Systematic denial would be a hard sell to fall under article two, which is why article one exists.

Do elaborate, because I don't see what you're trying to get at.

You're at once complaining that your constitution is too thorough while bragging about how thorough it is.

I'm not complaining that it's too thorough - the freedom from worship is needed in the constitution because it is not covered by other points. The freedom of worship, though, is and thus needs not be specifically mentioned. If the freedom from worship were somehow also covered in the first five points, I would not mind its removal, but it isn't. So, again, your comment is off mark.

I think I'll stick my head in here without actually reading the pages between here and pg. 1. The question here is if freedom of religion is already protected, why not take the explicit phrase "freedom of worship" out of the Swedish Constitution? Well my question to Fass would be, in the politically correct era of politics, national and globally, in which we live, why take it out? Because possibly that elements of the Swedish Humanist group wants to take it out, then come to power in the government and take away the freedom of worship by going "Neener neener neener! It isn't in the Constitution you superstitious morons! Haha! No freedom for people who choose to believe in God!"

Is that it?

I mean, if the Swedish Humanist group is considered a left wing group, and I've had a friend on here say that left leaning people are more 'accepting' of other people's views. If one of those points were true, than there is no possible way that the other point could be true. If the Humanists are left wing, then their agenda clearly proves that they are not accepting and tolerant of other people's views. Going a bit further, if the previous statement is true, than it disproves the idea that left leaning people are tolerant.

But I wouldn't want to judge a whole political idea based on a few extremists now would I?:D

That has to do with free trade and EU movement of goods.



Sweden already has the sixth point, and it did not protect kosher slaughter, so your comment is quite peculiar. Sweden needs the sixth point to protect something it already doesn't protect? :confused:

My point is that the sixth point isn't be adequately applied and should be extended to protect kosher slaughter, the denial of which seems to be a remnant of anti-semitism more than anything else (though I could be wrong on the anti-semitic point). If the sixth point isn't adequately doing its job, than it shouldn't be removed, it should be extended.

That has to do with free trade and EU movement of goods.
Not totally; a sovereign government can quite easily prevent a certain good from entering its borders, even if there is no rational reason to do so. The EU can’t force a nation to import something it doesn’t want to. See, for example, the French governments banning of importation of British beef long after the BSE crisis was over and the EU health watchdog(s) declared the beef safe for consumption.

I think LG’s point still stands.

However, with a slight re-wording of one or more of the other five points of the Swedish constitution, I can see how the sixth could become unnecessary. I agree that religious sects shouldn’t have special dispensation, but I strongly believe the right to worship or not worship should be strongly protected.

Why is one clause, that guarentee's people's freedom a problem? Even IF the other clauses protect the same thing, this clause spells it out in no uncertain terms that the freedom of worship is protected. That is a good thing. Making things clear is always good, so why the problem?



I still think this is just another attempt by Fass to attack religion at every turn.

I--snip--
Is that it?

Nope, especially since government doesn't work like that here and especially since the first five points would preclude it.

I mean, if the Swedish Humanist group is considered a left wing group

It's not. This matter is not a "left-wing/right-wing" matter here. Many prominent right-wingers as well as left-wingers are part of the Humanists and the association is something called "tvärpolitisk" in Swedish - it sort of means "cross-political".

My point is that the sixth point isn't be adequately applied

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

and should be extended to protect kosher slaughter, the denial of which seems to be a remnant of anti-semitism more than anything else (though I could be wrong on the anti-semitic point).

You are very much wrong on both points - freedom of religion doesn't protect everything that can be claimed to be "religious". You could claim that burning cats alive as a sacrifice to Satan is religious, it would still be illegal. Kosher slaughter as a cruelty to animals is banned for the exact same reason - just because your religion has some edict, it does not mean that it can be used as an excuse to break the law.

If the sixth point isn't adequately doing its job, than it shouldn't be removed, it should be extended.

The argument here is that it isn't the sixth point doing any of the job, but the first five.

Not totally; a sovereign government can quite easily prevent a certain good from entering its borders, even if there is no rational reason to do so.

No, it can't, and it can't even if it has a fully "rational" reason.

The EU can’t force a nation to import something it doesn’t want to.

Yes, it can. Sweden has for instance been forced to allow the importation of several food additives that had been banned prior to our entrance into the EU, and it has on several occasions been taken before the European Court of Justice on matters of free movement of goods, the latest largely publicised one was the prohibition on certain importations of alcohol by private persons (Sweden lost).

See, for example, the French governments banning of importation of British beef long after the BSE crisis was over and the EU health watchdog(s) declared the beef safe for consumption.

And the UK threatened to have France sued before the ECJ - a suit France would have lost. It never went that far, though. The EU has far-reaching authority when it comes to the free movement of goods and services in the internal market.

I think LG’s point still stands.

In light of my elaboration to fill in your gaps of knowledge on EU law, it doesn't.

However, with a slight re-wording of one or more of the other five points of the Swedish constitution, I can see how the sixth could become unnecessary. I agree that religious sects shouldn’t have special dispensation, but I strongly believe the right to worship or not worship should be strongly protected.

Why should religion be more protected than any other opinion? Shouldn't they all be equally strongly protected? If they are, then why should religion merit more consideration?

That has to do with free trade and EU movement of goods.



Sweden already has the sixth point, and it did not protect kosher slaughter, so your comment is quite peculiar. Sweden needs the sixth point to protect something it already doesn't protect? :confused:

Maybe they should. It makes one wonder how little respect they would have for religion if it wasn't specifically mentioned.

Why should religion be more protected than any other opinion? Shouldn't they all be equally strongly protected? If they are, then why should religion merit more consideration?

Evidently the first five are adequately protected, however, they do not seem to be protecting religion. Since the last one concerning religion isn't working properly, perhaps it should be strengthened.

It sets a bad precedent- if tehy take away #6, then they could easily declare #5 superflurous

Who said that? I just said that crack has some religious behavior doesn't. And the biggest costs of religious behavior come from more public expressions of religion, which are protected under freedom of association and expression.

Oopsy. :)

Freedom of conscience and thought are not covered explicitly by the first 5 clauses. Only that you may express them, not that the state is able to sponsor or promote one philosophical belief over another. It limits the government or even the private sector from punishing or limiting you simply for being religious, rather than just expressing your religious sentiments.

Evidently the first five are adequately protected, however, they do not seem to be protecting religion. Since the last one concerning religion isn't working properly, perhaps it should be strengthened.

It is working properly. I've already mentioned it once - Satanists aren't allowed to use religious freedom to sacrifice cats, and Jews aren't allowed to use equally immense cruelty to kill animals to please their deity. Freedom of religion doesn't protect everything religious, nor should it.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Then the Supreme Court is contradicting its own Constitution. I know you hate American examples, but I'd like to call Plessy vs. Ferguson to light. Just because a Supreme Court upholds a decision doesn't mean it's either right or constitutional-- for both the US and Sweden.


You are very much wrong on both points - freedom of religion (doesn't protect everything that can be claimed to be "religious". You could claim that burning cats alive as a sacrifice to Satan is religious, it would still be illegal. Kosher slaughter as a cruelty to animals is banned for the exact same reason - just because your religion has some edict, it does not mean that it can be used as an excuse to break the law.


The point of Kosher is to slaughter an animal as humanely as possible. How does the rest of Sweden kill their meat? Wait for it to die of old age or catch mad cow?

The point of Kosher is to slaughter an animal as humanely as possible.

Well, sort of... but "humane" slaughter practices have changed substantially in two thousand years.

Then the Supreme Court is contradicting its own Constitution.

Nope.

I know you hate American examples, but I'd like to call Plessy vs. Ferguson to light. Just because a Supreme Court upholds a decision doesn't mean it's either right or constitutional-- for both the US and Sweden.

The Swedish Supreme Court is not a constitutional court, its power of judicial review is limited. Swedish laws are much more subject to judicial preview by the Council on Legislation before they are passed, and it did not find the law unconstitutional or not in accordance with the Swedish system of justice or The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The point of Kosher is to slaughter an animal as humanely as possible.

Yet it prohibits the sedation of the animal and several other cruelty-diminishing aspects demanded by Swedish animal husbandry, cruelty and hygiene laws. Kosher slaughter simply doesn't meet the Swedish animal cruelty standards and thus it is banned. It is not sufficiently humane. But, this thread is not about kosher slaughter - that was just an example of LG's point not being all that much of a point at all.

It is working properly. I've already mentioned it once - Satanists aren't allowed to use religious freedom to sacrifice cats, and Jews aren't allowed to use equally immense cruelty to kill animals to please their deity. Freedom of religion doesn't protect everything religious, nor should it.

I was under the assumption that animals are killed for food as it is. Animals that have to be killed in a 'humane' manner to make them kosher hardly seems as some sort of 'right' to be denied.

Freedom of conscience and thought are not covered explicitly by the first 5 clauses. Only that you may express them, not that the state is able to sponsor or promote one philosophical belief over another. It limits the government or even the private sector from punishing or limiting you simply for being religious, rather than just expressing your religious sentiments.

Are you talking about the sixth point? The protection from discrimination due to religion in hiring and those sorts of matters is covered elsewhere.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?Is there something about the Swedish Constitution that prohibits government money from going to the construction of religious things? ('Things' consisting of buildings as well as nativity scenes, as well as other possible examples.)

I was under the assumption that animals are killed for food as it is.

Yes, but at higher standards than kosher slaughter can attain.

Animals that have to be killed in a 'humane' manner to make them kosher hardly seems as some sort of 'right' to be denied.

To be kosher, the animals have to be killed in such a manner that Swedish laws on cruelty toward animals are breached. Jewish calls for having the despicable ways in which they kill animals fall under religious freedom have fortunately fallen on deaf ears, just like the Satanists' and what have you. I'll repeat, this isn't a thread on kosher slaughter, that was just an example that point six didn't protect the "manufacture" that LG was alluding to and thus was a way to undermine his point.

Freedom of religion also allows for Muslims to wear burkas in school for instance. This is something not covered in the first 5 clauses. The question is whether things like this should be allowed (and thus whether the freedom of religion clause should exist)? Do you think Muslims should be able to wear burkas in school Fass?

Why should religion be more protected than any other opinion? Shouldn’t they all be equally strongly protected? If they are, then why should religion merit more consideration?
I never said religious beliefs should be protected more than any opinion. I said: “I strongly believe the right to worship or not worship should be strongly protected”, i.e., I believe that, along with other rights, the right to be able to freely worship a god or gods, or not to worship any god or gods whatsoever, should be protected under law.

Nothing there about religious beliefs being given more protection or consideration.

Freedom of religion also allows for Muslims to wear burkas in school for instance.

Actually, freedom of expression would be doing that.

Do you think Muslims should be able to wear burkas in school Fass?

If you mean those that cover the entire face, for practical reasons no. If you mean those that allow the face to be seen and the student thus to be sufficiently identified, then yes.

Nothing there about religious beliefs being given more protection or consideration.

Then point six can be done away with.

Then point six can be done away with.
If and only if the right to freely worship or not worship is protected by the other five points of the constitution. I agree with you that it does appear to be, but I’m open to a religious person showing me how it isn’t.

Actually, freedom of expression would be doing that.


I'm not entirely sure. For example, someone wouldn't be able to go into a school that requires a uniform, wearing a bunny suit for no reason, since it would be against the uniform code, even if I thought I was expressing some sort of belief. However, freedom of religion stops schools from enforcing uniform codes that don't allow religious people to wear what is nessecerry for them to adhere to their religious beliefs (i.e. a burka), simply because it is a state recognised religion. If there was no freedom of religion, then I'm not convinced that any other clause would be able to enforce schools to amend their school uniform codes to allow for religious expression of this sort. As you said, what makes their expression of their opinion any more important then any other non religious opinion?

Then point six can be done away with.

I agree with you that it does appear to be, but I’m open to a religious person showing me how it isn’t.
In fact, what’s the reaction to the Humanist Society’s suggestion from religious organisations within Sweden?

Any examples of practices, rites, etc., given that they claim would not be protected under the other five points?

Is there something about the Swedish Constitution that prohibits government money from going to the construction of religious things? ('Things' consisting of buildings as well as nativity scenes, as well as other possible examples.)

Unfortunately, not. :( The religious congregations (of whatever religion) once they attain a certain following can apply for government grants and benefit from public funds in several ways, such as "social projects" that they can get subsidised.

Yep, point 6 looks pretty superfluous to me.

It makes me wonder just how many other legal documents scattered around the world could do with similar trimming.

I'm not entirely sure. For example, someone wouldn't be able to go into a school that requires a uniform,

Swedish schools cannot demand uniforms as the regulations are today, and one of the main reasons for that is because it is deemed an incursion on the freedom of expression. In fact, Christian Democrats have been pushing for school uniforms (on soundly deaf ears, fortunately), and they're the religious loons of Swedish politics, so it's not at all apparent that religious people would be loath of uniforms...

wearing a bunny suit for no reason, since it would be against the uniform code, even if I thought I was expressing some sort of belief. However, freedom of religion stops schools from enforcing uniform codes that don't allow religious people to wear what is nessecerry for them to adhere to their religious beliefs (i.e. a burka), simply because it is a state recognised religion. If there was no freedom of religion, then I'm not convinced that any other clause would be able to enforce schools to amend their school uniform codes to allow for religious expression of this sort. As you said, what makes their expression of their opinion any more important then any other non religious opinion?

You seem to be arguing that religion be made a special form of expression because regular freedom of expression wouldn't protect religious outfits. I am of the opinion that if regular freedom of expression doesn't protect the outfits, no special freedom should be created. The same freedom for everyone to wear what they want should apply - it is hardly fair that for instance a Christian's necklace with a cross on it be protected, but not someone who has a necklace with a cameo (ugh, tackorama, but still).

What if it is superfluous? It doesn't look like it is, but even if it were, so what? Removing it wouldn't give more freedom, at best it would help obsessive compulsives who need exactly five points.

What if it is superfluous? It doesn't look like it is, but even if it were, so what?

Well, it's usually the religious who bitch about "special rights". Consistently...

Well, it's usually the religious who bitch about "special rights". Consistently...

And now it's the other way around? :p

Turnaround is fair play.

Yep. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXm3Qg7sBo)

And now it's the other way around? :p

Turnaround is fair play.

Yep. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXm3Qg7sBo)

Fag.

What a fassinating display of deiphobic fasscism (to use a term so beloved by certain segments of NSG-dom).

Sweden sure has fallen a long way since the days of Gustavus Adolphus if the SHA is in any way representative. :rolleyes:

Fag.

Look whose talkin'. :p
To be honest, the only times I've 'listened' to the song is when on a bus traveling at speeds too fast to jump off safely. It tends to get stuck in the head though...like a leech.

And I did not start this thread on the topic of the USA and its constitution, so I would kindly like for it not to derail this thread.

We do not always get what we want.

Sweden sure has fallen a long way since the days of Gustavus Adolphus if the SHA is in any way representative. :rolleyes:

Yeah, who doesn't miss the days of a despotic war-hungry monarch and when there was no freedom of worship at all, let alone the other five core freedoms? Come back Gustav II Adolph and enslave us again! Someone from the USA yearns for your autocracy, in bitter regret that Dubya didn't quite manage to equal your military prowess or iron, unlubed fist to drill his ass!

Look whose talkin'. :p

It's a term of sheer endearment.

To be honest, the only times I've 'listened' to the song is when on a bus traveling at speeds too fast to jump off safely. It tends to get stuck in the head though...like a leech.

Your bridges were burned, and now it's your turn to cry, cry me a river, cry me a river-er, cry me a river, cry me a river-er, yea yea...

We do not always get what we want.

I did.

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?
While I think I could agree with the point of view the discrimination against religion (or lack there of) has such a history that it may not hurt to re-enforce the point for some time in the distant future when it may not be as superfluous and will help to drive home the point at that time

I guess I am a fan of having extra verbiage to cover something that may not be as obviously covered in future generations

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

The people and government of Sweden know best what they want. If it's covered elsewhere, no rights will be denied by removing it; however, I fail to see the point in removing it so long as the right NOT to worship is also protected.

My thoughts:

Shove your religion bashing bullshit up your ass.

That is all.

MY thoughts:

Flaming is inappropriate. Knock it off.

It's a term of sheer endearment.

Your bridges were burned, and now it's your turn to cry, cry me a river, cry me a river-er, cry me a river, cry me a river-er, yea yea...

Do you ever sleep?

Do you ever sleep?

Yes, but I have an irregular schedule and suffer from insomnia. I slept earlier, and now I'm up and will be until this evening (it's 6 am here). Lectures start in two hours, I should make breakfast and get something ready to bring for lunch... *sigh*

Yes, but I have an irregular schedule and suffer from insomnia. I slept earlier, and now I'm up and will be until this evening (it's 6 am here). Lectures start in two hours, I should make breakfast and get something ready to bring for lunch... *sigh*

That must be irritating.

That must be irritating.

Well, bills have to be paid, grades have to be kept...

Maybe there's something I'm not getting because I don't know a word of Swedish, but I read Chapter 2 of the Swedish Constitution and I don't see how religion is "otherwise protected" if Article 1.6 is removed. I do see quite a bit references made that state religion cannot be used for legally discriminatory purposes, but I don't know if that's enough to protect religion (or even if literal references to religion can remain in the Constitution without 1.6).

I don't know, for one, what would stop, say, the Swedish government from labelling Islam a "criminal organization" because a Muslim blew himself up on a Stockholm bus, doing the same to Christianity after a fundamentalist kills an abortion doctor or declaring the Tanakh "hate speech" because it talks about "an eye for an eye". Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit the Swedish government from outlawing organizations (which is not the same thing as "assembly" and "association" since "organization" involves creating a specific group), I don't see where a Christian organization, a Islamic organization, a Hindu organization, etc. would otherwise get governmental protection.

I also have to disagree that without 1.6 employers and businesses cannot discriminate based on religion. Article 12 states the extent of legal restrictions on the freedoms present in Article 1 cannot include any way be based on religious reasons (although, again, I fail to see how the word "religious" can stay without 1.6), Article 2 simply says no one can be forced to hold an opinion or belong to a group with which they do not wish to belong to (this also includes "coercion into a religious group" but again I don't see how "religious" can stay without 1.6) and Chapter 2, Article 13, sentence two states "freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities", meaning it is possible for a restaurant to deny service for religious reasons, a guild or other economic partnership may also deny membership based on that fact and businesspeople could see their goods rejected solely on religious grounds. It's still possible much of this goes on even with 1.6, but without it the task becomes *much* easier.

Lastly, I still don't see how having "freedom of religion" really hurts anyone. The original reason why it was entrenched was because of persecutions, and secondly it's not like the religions themselves do any harm (adherents do, but that's a totally separate issue). So I must think the Swedish Humanists' Society's basis is nothing more than ideologically motivated as there's no reason to tie religion specifically with any malcontent.

what its time to abolish, is alowing any soverign government, however covertly, to practice religeous bias in any form.

i don't care if there christians, moslems, budhists or even baha'is, or taoists or whatever. for that matter i'd extend this to idiologies and economics as well, capitolist, marxist, whateverist.

=^^=
.../\...

what its time to abolish, is alowing any soverign government, however covertly, to practice religeous bias in any form.

i don't care if there christians, moslems, budhists or even baha'is, or taoists or whatever. for that matter i'd extend this to idiologies and economics as well, capitolist, marxist, whateverist.

=^^=
.../\...

I agree. We should also abolish cancer, North Korea and school bullies while we're at it.

I agree. We should also abolish cancer, North Korea and school bullies while we're at it.

north korea would be bullieing itself. cancer we're working on and school bullies we can and out to be more interested in doing. an end to romantacizing and rewarding aggressiveness would go a LOOOONG way in that direction!

=^^=
.../\...

Or you can be caustic. That's always a lovely option. Though, without an anti-holocaust law like much of the rest of Europe, my example is pretty much useless...

How many other European countries have holocaust denial laws?

AFAIK you can count them on the fingers of a hand.

Unfortunately, not. :( The religious congregations (of whatever religion) once they attain a certain following can apply for government grants and benefit from public funds in several ways, such as "social projects" that they can get subsidised.That's odd, but interesting.

Do you think that without the 'freedom of worship' clause, religious groups would not be able to do this?

It does no harm to state the obvious concerning constitutional rights. It may do harm not to state the obvious.

Maybe there's something I'm not getting because I don't know a word of Swedish, but I read Chapter 2 of the Swedish Constitution and I don't see how religion is "otherwise protected" if Article 1.6 is removed.

The five points preceding it, as mentioned in the OP, cover it.

I do see quite a bit references made that state religion cannot be used for legally discriminatory purposes, but I don't know if that's enough to protect religion (or even if literal references to religion can remain in the Constitution without 1.6).

They can easily stay because they are not contingent on 1.6 and no one is talking about discrimination, which doesn't have anything to do with 1.6 and protection from discrimination is not covered in that.

I don't know, for one, what would stop, say, the Swedish government from labelling Islam a "criminal organization" because a Muslim blew himself up on a Stockholm bus, doing the same to Christianity after a fundamentalist kills an abortion doctor or declaring the Tanakh "hate speech" because it talks about "an eye for an eye".

1.1 - 1.5.

Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit the Swedish government from outlawing organizations (which is not the same thing as "assembly" and "association" since "organization" involves creating a specific group), I don't see where a Christian organization, a Islamic organization, a Hindu organization, etc. would otherwise get governmental protection.

1.1 - 1.5.

I also have to disagree that without 1.6 employers and businesses cannot discriminate based on religion.

1.6 only applies to the government (and not even in a discriminatory sense) - even with 1.6 employers and businesses could discriminate against the religious, since 1.6 is not an anti-discrimination clause. Discrimination is dealt with elsewhere and in other laws.

Article 12 states the extent of legal restrictions on the freedoms present in Article 1 cannot include any way be based on religious reasons (although, again, I fail to see how the word "religious" can stay without 1.6),

Easily, because it is not contingent on 1.6.

Article 2 simply says no one can be forced to hold an opinion or belong to a group with which they do not wish to belong to (this also includes "coercion into a religious group" but again I don't see how "religious" can stay without 1.6)

Easily, because it is not contingent on 1.6.

and Chapter 2, Article 13, sentence two states "freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities", meaning it is possible for a restaurant to deny service for religious reasons, a guild or other economic partnership may also deny membership based on that fact and businesspeople could see their goods rejected solely on religious grounds. It's still possible much of this goes on even with 1.6, but without it the task becomes *much* easier.

Again, 1.6 has nothing to do with discrimination and Chapter 2, article 13 has nothing to do with what you're talking about - it is giving an exception for trade secrets to be something not covered by freedom of information and speech, and really has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Lastly, I still don't see how having "freedom of religion" really hurts anyone.

It sends a signal that superstitious opinions are somehow more worthy of special protection than other opinions, despite the fact that superstitious opinions are already protected like other opinions in 1.1-1.5. It is time to stop sending that signal, it is time to stop favouring religious opinions in that way.

The original reason why it was entrenched was because of persecutions,

That happened before versions of 1.1-1.5 protected them. No reason to still have 1.6.

and secondly it's not like the religions themselves do any harm (adherents do, but that's a totally separate issue). So I must think the Swedish Humanists' Society's basis is nothing more than ideologically motivated as there's no reason to tie religion specifically with any malcontent.

You assume they do. They don't. They just maintain that superstitious opinions are not worthy of special protections and laws and can be protected like any other opinion.

Do you think that without the 'freedom of worship' clause, religious groups would not be able to do this?

Oh, they'd be able to do this as non-profit organisations, which is how they do it today.

My thoughts:

Shove your religion bashing bullshit up your ass.

That is all.

Thank you for contributing to this discussion:rolleyes:

How many other European countries have holocaust denial laws?

AFAIK you can count them on the fingers of a hand.
Austria and Germany only, AFAIK.

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

I am going to assume that you are not a troll and actually respond. At most the freedom of religion in that excerpt is possibly redundant. However, I see nothing in the other points that expressly protects the right to worship according to one's conscience. I see lots of protection of meeting with people and or discussing ideas with them but nothing about protecting one's right to hold beliefs or to communicate with the divine.

Europe has seen centuries of inter-religious torture, imprisonment, and killings. Sweden was caught up in very long and bloody wars over religion. Your thoughts that their constitution should not include an express protection of religious worship seems a bit odd in light of the history of religious violence in that region.

Your claim that this clause is discriminatory is bizzare. Although Sweden does have a state religion, there is nothing discriminatory about this clause. In fact, given the historic problems of violence and monarchical religious-politics, and given the fact that there is a state religion, I see this clause as a major and important safeguard against having a state imposed religion.

How do any of the first five clauses prevent the ban of silent prayer?

Although Sweden does have a state religion,

Oh, for the fucking third time already - Sweden does not have a state religion! Had you known anything about Sweden like you pretend to and read this thread before posting, you would have known that and also would have seen that everything else in your post has already been dealt with.

To me, the attempt to remove the clause is ideologically motivated.

I mean, does having it in there really hurt anybody? And keeping it to me, considering the history of that region, is not a bad idea. Better safe than sorry IMO.

How do any of the first five clauses prevent the ban of silent prayer?

Like they protect every non-religious internal monologue you have. :rolleyes:

To me, the attempt to remove the clause is ideologically motivated.

Of course it is. Like every other political thing. So?

To me, the attempt to remove the clause is ideologically motivated.
Quite obviously.

I mean, does having it in there really hurt anybody? And keeping it to me, considering the history of that region, is not a bad idea. Better safe than sorry IMO.
Perhaps a change of wording would be more suited? To better incorporate not only the freedom to worship, but the freedom not to worship, for example.

The Swedish Humanist Association's objection is that the clause implies a special consideration for religious belief. If the wording was changed to include the freedom not to worship, then this perceived special consideration would disappear, surely?

Of course it is. Like every other political thing. So?

So read the rest of my post.

As I stated earlier, because its ideologically motivated and not being done with the good of Sweden in mind or because it somehow harms society, it might as well remain in the Constitution.

Like they protect every non-religious internal monologue you have. :rolleyes:

So you agree that the document requires amendment to protect internal monologue then?

And this is all coming from an agnostic. Im just not militant.
Who is?

'Militant atheist' is such a nonsensical term, unless the person in question really is using violence to make the case for atheism.

Quite obviously.


Perhaps a change of wording would be more suited? To better incorporate not only the freedom to worship, but the freedom not to worship, for example.

The Swedish Humanist Association's objection is that the clause implies a special consideration for religious belief. If the wording was changed to include the freedom not to worship, then this perceived special consideration would disappear, surely?


I doubt it. We have groups like this in America too. They wont rest until every minor reference to religion is removed from the public eye forever. Even if the freedom not to worship was incorperated, theyed still want it removed because it grants the freedom to worship.

And this is all coming from an agnostic. Im just not militant.

So read the rest of my post.

It says nothing to corroborate that it being ideological somehow taints it.

So you agree that the document requires amendment to protect internal monologue then?

Oh, I can just see your logic circuits failing and imagining this happening in the street in Stockholm all the time:

*woman standing silently, policeman approaches her*
- Salutation, citizen! I saw you were idling silently here. What are you thinking, is it something non-religious?

- No, no constable! I was thinking of Jesus and how his supple zombie flesh tastes delicious with some lingonberry confit.

- Oh, alright then. Carry on. Had you been thinking non-religious things I could've arrested you for doing it, because as you know and must have been told by someone who's completely failed to understand it on the Internet our constitution only protects religious thoughts! But not to worry, we'll soon ban those too if the Humanists are as successful as I hope. Good evening, fröken!

- Good evening to you, too.

Oh, I can just see your logic circuits failing and imagining this happening in the street in Stockholm all the time:

*woman standing silently, policeman approaches her*
- Salutation, citizen! I saw you were idling silently here. What are you thinking, is it something non-religious?

- No, no constable! I was thinking of Jesus and how his supple zombie flesh tastes delicious with some lingonberry confit.

- Oh, alright then. Carry on. Had you been thinking non-religious things I could've arrested you for doing it, because as you know and must have been told by someone who's completely failed to understand it on the Internet our constitution only protects religious thoughts! But not to worry, we'll soon ban those too if the Humanists are as successful as I hope. Good evening, fröken!

- Good evening to you, too.

LOL :p

Oh, for the fucking third time already - Sweden does not have a state religion! Had you known anything about Sweden like you pretend to and read this thread before posting, you would have known that and also would have seen that everything else in your post has already been dealt with.

Ok. My knowledge of Sweden is entirely second hand. I dated and lived with a Swedish girl for a year and a half. She told me that they have a Swedish national religion. I believe it was some type of Protestantism which I guess would be Lutheranism since that was how Sweden rolled back when it was doing a lion's share of the fighting for the Protestant forces back in the days of King G.A.

I did not read this thread before posting I only read the first page.

I doubt it. We have groups like this in America too. They wont rest until every minor reference to religion is removed from the public eye forever. Even if the freedom not to worship was incorperated, theyed still want it removed because it grants the freedom to worship.

And this is all coming from an agnostic. Im just not militant.

Everyman who has faith in God is agnostic. I do not understand why people refer to themselves as agnostic if not to separate themselves from insane folks and prophets who "know" that God exists.

Oh, I can just see your logic circuits failing and imagining this happening in the street in Stockholm all the time:

*woman standing silently, policeman approaches her*
- Salutation, citizen! I saw you were idling silently here. What are you thinking, is it something non-religious?

- No, no constable! I was thinking of Jesus and how his supple zombie flesh tastes delicious with some lingonberry confit.

- Oh, alright then. Carry on. Had you been thinking non-religious things I could've arrested you for doing it, because as you know and must have been told by someone who's completely failed to understand it on the Internet our constitution only protects religious thoughts! But not to worry, we'll soon ban those too if the Humanists are as successful as I hope. Good evening, fröken!

- Good evening to you, too.

Ah smashing. I see you believe that a constitution poorly written to deal with the possibilities of the future is the way to go for your country.

The US is already proving that a badly written constitution with poorly defined terms can cause issues with the interpretations of the freedoms specifically granted but I'm sure that you know best fass ;).

As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

As superfluous, yes, discriminatory? I don't see how its discriminatory

How do any of the first five clauses prevent the ban of silent prayer?

They do not ban it but do not expressly protect it either.

They do not ban it but do not expressly protect it either.

That is my point. A lack of specfic protection in the constitution means that it can be banned in the future much more easily.

Oh, I can just see your logic circuits failing and imagining this happening in the street in Stockholm all the time:

*woman standing silently, policeman approaches her*
- Salutation, citizen! I saw you were idling silently here. What are you thinking, is it something non-religious?

- No, no constable! I was thinking of Jesus and how his supple zombie flesh tastes delicious with some lingonberry confit.

- Oh, alright then. Carry on. Had you been thinking non-religious things I could've arrested you for doing it, because as you know and must have been told by someone who's completely failed to understand it on the Internet our constitution only protects religious thoughts! But not to worry, we'll soon ban those too if the Humanists are as successful as I hope. Good evening, fröken!

- Good evening to you, too.

You are flippantly ignoring the fact that evil catholics sued to torture and kill people who refused to think in ways that they did not approve of. Sweden fought these nasty catholics in very long bloody and expensive wars. The lesson that they and the rest of Europe learned (after a lot of suffering) was that no degree of violence will force someone to change their beliefs and society runs a whole lot smoother if people can go about their business without being imprisoned, tortured, and killed over their religious beliefs.

That is my point. A lack of specfic protection in the constitution means that it can be banned in the future much more easily.

Yes.

Ah smashing. I see you believe that a constitution poorly written to deal with the possibilities of the future is the way to go for your country.

No, I see that literacy is the way to go for my country. That way, we'll never risk your nonsensical "interpretation".

You are flippantly ignoring the fact

I'm flippantly ignoring poppycock.

that evil catholics sued to torture and kill people who refused to think in ways that they did not approve of. Sweden fought these nasty catholics in very long bloody and expensive wars. The lesson that they and the rest of Europe learned (after a lot of suffering) was that no degree of violence will force someone to change their beliefs and society runs a whole lot smoother if people can go about their business without being imprisoned, tortured, and killed over their religious beliefs.

And the Swedish constitution bans all that (capital punishment, undue imprisonment, torture for any reason) even without point six. Point 6 doesn't protect Swedes from those things - other parts of the constitution do. Read them, please, before you attempt another superfluous post that doesn't support keeping point 6 at all.

The lesson that they and the rest of Europe learned (after a lot of suffering) was that no degree of violence will force someone to change their beliefs and society runs a whole lot smoother if people can go about their business without being imprisoned, tortured, and killed over their religious beliefs.

I'd beg to differ. Not that I agree with violence, but do you see any Muslims or Protestants in Spain? While violent repression is morally reprehensible, it is usually rather effective.

They can easily stay because they are not contingent on 1.6 and no one is talking about discrimination, which doesn't have anything to do with 1.6 and protection from discrimination is not covered in that.

...

1.6 only applies to the government (and not even in a discriminatory sense) - even with 1.6 employers and businesses could discriminate against the religious, since 1.6 is not an anti-discrimination clause. Discrimination is dealt with elsewhere and in other laws.

"Every citizen shall be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any coercion to divulge an opinion in a political, religious, cultural or other such connection. He shall furthermore be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, or to belong to a political association, religious community or other association for opinion referred to in sentence one." (Article 2)

That says "public institutions" (not literally the government) cannot force anyone to give opinions on a religious topic, and it cannot force someone to belong to a religious group. Hence, one's religion can *not* be used against them (i.e., "discrimination").

"The rights and freedoms referred to in Article 1, points 1 to 5, in Articles 6 and 8, and in Article 11, paragraph two, may be restricted in law to the extent provided for in Articles 13 to 16. With authority in law, they may be restricted by other statute in cases under Chapter 8, Article 7, paragraph one, point 7, and Article 10. Freedom of assembly and freedom to demonstrate may similarly be restricted also in cases under Article 14, paragraph one, sentence two.

The restrictions referred to in paragraph one may be imposed only to satisfy a purpose acceptable in a democratic society. The restriction must never go beyond what is necessary having regard to the purpose which occasioned it, nor may it be carried so far as to constitute a threat to the free formation of opinion as one of the fundaments (sic) of democracy. No restriction may be imposed solely on grounds of a political, religious, cultural or other such opinion.

A draft law under paragraph one, or a proposal for the amendment or ab-rogation (sic) of such a law, shall be held in abeyance, unless rejected by the Riksdag, for a minimum of twelve months from the date on which the first Riksdag committee report on the proposal was submitted to the Chamber, if so moved by at least ten members. This provision notwithstanding, the Riksdag may adopt the proposal, provided it has the support of at least five sixths of those voting.

Paragraph three shall not apply to any draft law prolonging the life of a law for a period not exceeding two years. Nor shall it apply to any draft law concerned only with

1. prohibition of the disclosure of matters which have come to a person’s knowledge in the public service, or in the performance of official duties, where secrecy is called for having regard to interests under Chapter 2, Article 2 of the Freedom of the Press Act;

2. house searches and similar invasions of privacy; or

3. deprivation of liberty as a penal sanction for a specific act.

The Committee on the Constitution determines on behalf of the Riksdag whether paragraph three applies in respect of a particular draft law." (Article 12)

Article 12 deals with how the government can restrict freedoms. It says that no law can restrict freedoms based solely on religious grounds (i.e., "discrimination"). So that means that no law can be religiously discriminatory...which is exactly what I had said.

The five points preceding it, as mentioned in the OP, cover it.

...

1.1 - 1.5.

...

1.1 - 1.5.

How? I've read them as well as I could and I don't see anywhere a protection against specific organizations. As written, without 1.6, the Swedish Constitution allows people to gather in a crowd for informal or formal purposes (meaning you're perfectly allowed to form any kind of organization), but it does not say that a specific group cannot be legally targeted (subject to the bounds of Article 12). Such a provision makes sense, because if the government wishes to deem a group a terrorist or criminal organization for legal purposes it can do so. In other words, specific groups cannot *have* protection under the law.

However, religious groups are a special kind of of "specific group" since misconceptions about religion can lead to erroneous laws. We see it all the time after a Muslim blows himself up on a bus or the subway as there are a lot of people who think Islam made that Muslim do what he did, and, indeed, erroneous interpretations of Islamic Law ("jihad", for one) would very much allow it to be classified as a "criminal organization". With 1.6 in there no such law can be made, because it affords the specific group of Muslims to be protected under Swedish law (doesn't mean that specific groups of Muslims are also protected- if an Islamic organization truly is criminal it can be declared so, but Islam in general cannot).

You know, speaking of specific groups...the Swedish Constitution also protects ethnicities (Article 15), yet by your arguments they could also be protected by 1.1-1.5 (since you assert that freedom of association, assembly and expression can cover religious communities, and it could also be argued, using your definitions, that "ethnicities" are nothing more than associations, assemblies and expressions). Are you going to tell me that ethnicities need not be protected either?

Easily, because it is not contingent on 1.6.

...

Easily, because it is not contingent on 1.6.

How are references to religion within the Constitution *not* contingent on religions being specifically protected by 1.6? There's no reason to state that legal religious discrimination is protected if religion is not.

Again, 1.6 has nothing to do with discrimination and Chapter 2, article 13 has nothing to do with what you're talking about - it is giving an exception for trade secrets to be something not covered by freedom of information and speech, and really has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

"Freedom of expression and freedom of information may be restricted having regard to the security of the Realm, the national supply of goods, public order and public safety, the good name of the individual, the sanctity of private life, and the prevention and prosecution of crime. Freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities. Freedom of expression and freedom of information may otherwise be restricted only where particularly important grounds so warrant.

In judging what restrictions may be introduced by virtue of paragraph one, particular regard shall be had to the importance of the widest possible freedom of expression and freedom of information in political, religious, professional, scientific and cultural matters.

The adoption of provisions which regulate in more detail a particular manner of disseminating or receiving information, without regard to its content, shall not be deemed a restriction of the freedom of expression or the freedom of information." (Article 13)

Based on a literal reading of Article 13, the Swedish Constitution is not specific with regards to *how* freedom of expression or information can be abridged- it specifically states "freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities.", and is a completely separate sentence. In saying "also" Article 13 says that expression can be abridged commercially in addition to the provisions covered in the previous sentence. It does not say "freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities, subject to the provisions of sentence one." The two sentences are *not* supposed to be directly related- the paragraph just outlines under what conditions freedom of expression may be limited to, but does not restrict those conditions to a specific situation.

So, again, without 1.6 (and religion being "an expression") we *still* could have a store owner (who engages in commercial activity) refusing to sell to Jews or a restaurant (also a commercial activity) refusing service to a Hindu. With 1.6 though, this cannot happen.

It sends a signal that superstitious opinions are somehow more worthy of special protection than other opinions, despite the fact that superstitious opinions are already protected like other opinions in 1.1-1.5. It is time to stop sending that signal, it is time to stop favouring religious opinions in that way.

A religion is *not* "just an opinion"- it is a specific way of life. You follow a certain religion because you adhere to certain beliefs, wish to associate yourself with a specific group of people and wish to perform certain practices and rituals. Really, you reducing religion to a subset of "superstitious opinions" shows that you've got no understanding of religion at all.

I also don't see why this "preferential treatment" is detrimental to society in some way- if all the different religious adherents are "minding their own businesses" (which they largely are) then there's no reason to act against them. It's not like the Swedish Constitution says "religious groups may get special favours from the government"- it just says that their right to worship is protected. Really, removing religious freedoms serves no purpose.

That happened before versions of 1.1-1.5 protected them. No reason to still have 1.6.

See above. Without 1.6, persecution can legally happen.

Furthermore, as I understand Swedish history, the 1951 Law on Freedom of Religion was enacted to end the monopoly of religious power by the Church of Sweden, eventually setting up its declassification as a state Church. Seems to me that freedom of religion is the only thing keeping the Church from again becoming legally sanctioned (since the Constitution prohibits favouring one religion over the other).

You assume they do. They don't. They just maintain that superstitious opinions are not worthy of special protections and laws and can be protected like any other opinion.

Since I see no beneficial reason for the removal of 1.6, I can only assume they are arguing for it because they are ideologically opposed to religion. There's no other reason to argue for the removal of 1.6.

Quite obviously.

Perhaps a change of wording would be more suited? To better incorporate not only the freedom to worship, but the freedom not to worship, for example.

The Swedish Humanist Association's objection is that the clause implies a special consideration for religious belief. If the wording was changed to include the freedom not to worship, then this perceived special consideration would disappear, surely?

I agree- the freedom "not to worship" does not appear to be enshrined, and it should be. Canada has not just freedom of religion but also freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which can include atheism. Maybe Sweden ought to adopt a similar provision.

That says "public institutions" (not literally the government)

Yes, that means "public institutions" - courts of law, ministries, prosecutorial authorities, the police etc etc etc. It does not cover employers within the private sector - other laws and prohibitions on discrimination do - however 1.6 has nothing to do with that. That's why you're not quoting 1.6, but a completely different part of the constitution.

cannot force anyone to give opinions on a religious topic, and it cannot force someone to belong to a religious group. Hence, one's religion can *not* be used against them (i.e., "discrimination").

Nope, that's not what that means at all in your second sentence - it simply means what you said in the first. It means that the government is not allowed to investigate your religion (i.e. compel you to share it or to pass "tests" of religion as used to be the case in the 18th and early 19th century) or force you to belong to one. It could however still discriminate against you in other ways - that's why a different part of the constitution deals with discrimination chapter one:

"The public institutions shall combat discrimination of persons on grounds of gender, colour, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, functional disability, sexual orientation, age or other circumstance affecting the private person."

In any case - you are still not quoting 1.6! You're quoting not "freedom of worship" in the constitution, but freedom from worship, specifically - and that's not at all what this thread is about. It is about abolishing freedom of worship as superfluous under 1.1-1.5 - article 2 is to stay.

Article 12 deals with how the government can restrict freedoms. It says that no law can restrict freedoms based solely on religious grounds (i.e., "discrimination"). So that means that no law can be religiously discriminatory...which is exactly what I had said.

But which still has nothing to do with this thread as you're quoting other parts of the constitution no one wants removed.

How?

By there not being any aspect of religious expression that is in any way different from any other expression protected by 1.1 - 1.5.

You know, speaking of specific groups...the Swedish Constitution also protects ethnicities

Yes, but ethnicities are not opinions - religions are. "No act of law or other provision may imply the unfavourable treatment of a citizen because he belongs to a minority group by reason of race, colour, or ethnic origin." That doesn't fall under 1.1-1.5 as religion is an opinion expressed and chosen, while ethnicity - just being black for instance - is not that, and while 1.3-1.5 also protect minorities rights to assemble, demonstrate and associate like they do everyone else's, article 15 prohibits the passing of laws that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race and colour which is a completely different matter. There are myriad of ways that laws could be construed so as to specifically negatively affect people on those ground without affecting 1.3-1.5, article 15 completely puts a stop to that and is necessary. Still, again, has nothing to with 1.6.

How are references to religion within the Constitution *not* contingent on religions being specifically protected by 1.6?

By 1.6 not defining religion for the rest of the constitution - the rest of the references are not "stacked" upon and do fall at all with its removal.

Based on a literal reading of Article 13, the Swedish Constitution is not specific with regards to *how* freedom of expression or information can be abridged- it specifically states "freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities.", and is a completely separate sentence. In saying "also" Article 13 says that expression can be abridged commercially in addition to the provisions covered in the previous sentence. It does not say "freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities, subject to the provisions of sentence one." The two sentences are *not* supposed to be directly related- the paragraph just outlines under what conditions freedom of expression may be limited to, but does not restrict those conditions to a specific situation.

And still shines with its irrelevance to the thread, especially since as I mentioned that just gives the ability to restrict freedom of expression in commercial activities in the sense of allowing protection of trade secrets and such.

So, again, without 1.6 (and religion being "an expression") we *still* could have a store owner (who engages in commercial activity) refusing to sell to Jews or a restaurant (also a commercial activity) refusing service to a Hindu. With 1.6 though, this cannot happen.

Again, nonsense, since 1.6 only applies to "public institutions" and a shop keeper most certainly is not a "public institution", and the mention here of having to consider an expression of religion rests in no way on 1.6. It is independent of that. Restrictions upon discrimination by private citizens in commercial activities is dealt with in other laws, not this one.

A religion is *not* "just an opinion"

Yes, it is.

See above. Without 1.6, persecution can legally happen.

Nope, since all lawful expression any religion can take falls under 1.1-5.

Furthermore, as I understand Swedish history, the 1951 Law on Freedom of Religion was enacted to end the monopoly of religious power by the Church of Sweden,

That's not what the law was for - the monopoly of the Church of Sweden had been broken around a hundred years prior to that, and the law of 1951 came before the constitution of 1975. That constitution (the one we're discussing) obsoleted it, so that law is irrelevant.

Since I see no beneficial reason for the removal of 1.6

I see no beneficial reason to keep it.

I agree- the freedom "not to worship" does not appear to be enshrined

He shall furthermore be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, or to belong to a political association, religious community or other association for opinion referred to in sentence one.

The freedom not to worship is stated right there - you cannot be coerced to be religious (looky here, the constitution even states that religion is an opinion). You fail to understand the constitution once more.

I've been reading up on a debate advanced by the Swedish Humanist Association last month that I missed during my finals period, and their point in it has been quite simple; it is time to abolish "freedom of worship" from the Swedish constitution. The Instrument of Government states:



As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?

Not being an expert on Swedish law, I agree with you in principle. I can equate your position to those in the U.S. who are against hate-crime legislation for violence against homosexuals. It seems superfluous and positively discriminatory in favor of gays.

Not being an expert on Swedish law, I agree with you in principle. I can equate your position to those in the U.S. who are against hate-crime legislation for violence against homosexuals. It seems superfluous and positively discriminatory in favor of gays.

wait, what? I challenge you to find one instance in which hate crime legilsation was proposed for "violence against homosexuals".

Fass,

I know that this thread isn't about US law, but, the smoking crack tangent got me thinking. Here in the US, various religious groups are allowed to use substances that are normally banned as part of their ceremonies. Does 1.6 grant a similar freedom to religious groups in Sweden? If some groups are allowed to use mind-altering substances that are normally illegal, I don't see how 1.1-1.5 could protect such practices.

Austria and Germany only, AFAIK.Iirr the EU has now adopted such laws

As can easily be seen there is nothing about "freedom of worship" that is not already covered by the other five central rights protected by the constitution - there is not a single utterance of religion that doesn't fall under the first five points and that needs noting specifically on its own. "Freedom of worship" is thus nothing but a special and discriminatory "freedom" that apparently serves to denote superstition as somehow more worthy an opinion of government protection than any other opinion that is covered by the "regular" protections accorded in the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, demonstration and association.

Thus there is no reason for it to exist separately from them, and it should be removed as superfluous and (positively) discriminatory. Thoughts?
My country funnels money into the pockets of religious leaders at the expense of everyone else. :( I wish we had your problems instead.

I'd beg to differ. Not that I agree with violence, but do you see any Muslims or Protestants in Spain? While violent repression is morally reprehensible, it is usually rather effective.
Yes, but only as fairly recent immigrants (Muslims from northern Africa, Protestants from Britain...)

Iirr the EU has now adopted such laws
I think you might be referring to this ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6573005.stm), which makes 'incitement to racism' a EU-wide crime, but doesn't include holocaust denial.

Which is a good thing, IMO. Stifling free speech, no matter how stupid or abhorrent that speech is, is never the way to go.

I agree- the freedom "not to worship" does not appear to be enshrined, and it should be. Canada has not just freedom of religion but also freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which can include atheism. Maybe Sweden ought to adopt a similar provision.
Sounds good to me.

What would you say to such a measure, Fass?

I am for the elimination of the (sub)article in question, because I am against special treatment and legalization solely on the basis of an act's (alleged) religious nature.

This goes both ways. I am against discrimination of certain acts/symbols/etc. due to their religious ties. Because of this, I vehemently oppose e.g. laws that make it illegal to wear (certain) religious insignia (in certain public places), as IIRC France and Turkey have it with headscarves in schools. If there is freedom of expression including freedom of attiring oneself with the (non-dangerous, non-identity-masking, etc.) symbolic accessories of one's choosing, that should go for everyone and everything.

I am, on the other hand, also against making exceptions from regular laws just because of the religious nature of a usually illegal act. If a certain substance/act/etc. is illegal for bona fide reasons (safety, sanitation, human dignity, animal cruelty, etc.), then it being a part of a religious belief system should in no way alter its legal status (and, the other way 'round, if something is made mandatory somebody's religious beliefs shall not exempt them from it, either). Therefore, I support the ban on kosher slaughter if it has been found to not conform to animal cruelty prevention standards no matter what its religious significance, and I oppose any exception to the (German) mandatory schooling on the grounds of any of the educational content clashing with whatever religious belief.


That being said, there is neither need nor justification for any special mentioning of protection of religious expression in the Constitution, because the legality of any act of expression should in no way depend on the (non)religiosity of its nature. Leaving such an article in there only creates the impression that it does or should.

Yes, that means "public institutions" - courts of law, ministries, prosecutorial authorities, the police etc etc etc. It does not cover employers within the private sector - other laws and prohibitions on discrimination do - however 1.6 has nothing to do with that. That's why you're not quoting 1.6, but a completely different part of the constitution.

...

Nope, that's not what that means at all in your second sentence - it simply means what you said in the first. It means that the government is not allowed to investigate your religion (i.e. compel you to share it or to pass "tests" of religion as used to be the case in the 18th and early 19th century) or force you to belong to one. It could however still discriminate against you in other ways - that's why a different part of the constitution deals with discrimination chapter one:

"The public institutions shall combat discrimination of persons on grounds of gender, colour, national or ethnic origin, linguistic or religious affiliation, functional disability, sexual orientation, age or other circumstance affecting the private person."

In any case - you are still not quoting 1.6! You're quoting not "freedom of worship" in the constitution, but freedom from worship, specifically - and that's not at all what this thread is about. It is about abolishing freedom of worship as superfluous under 1.1-1.5 - article 2 is to stay.

...

But which still has nothing to do with this thread as you're quoting other parts of the constitution no one wants removed.

I stated the Constitution makes references barring legal discrimination against religion in certain situations, saying it's not enough to cover the protection of religion without 1.6. You decided to reply to that (of which I subsequently replied to). I must conclude that since you responded to my original point you felt that topic it was relevant. You don't get to declare a topic irrelevant that you are actively addressing yourself- that just smacks of "jumping the gun" before the debate is actually resolved.

By there not being any aspect of religious expression that is in any way different from any other expression protected by 1.1 - 1.5.

...and I explained to you why I did not agree. Are you going to address what I wrote or are you just going to wave your hand thinking that's enough?

Yes, but ethnicities are not opinions - religions are. "No act of law or other provision may imply the unfavourable treatment of a citizen because he belongs to a minority group by reason of race, colour, or ethnic origin." That doesn't fall under 1.1-1.5 as religion is an opinion expressed and chosen, while ethnicity - just being black for instance - is not that, and while 1.3-1.5 also protect minorities rights to assemble, demonstrate and associate like they do everyone else's, article 15 prohibits the passing of laws that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race and colour which is a completely different matter. There are myriad of ways that laws could be construed so as to specifically negatively affect people on those ground without affecting 1.3-1.5, article 15 completely puts a stop to that and is necessary. Still, again, has nothing to with 1.6.

First of all, "black" is not an ethnicity. It is a (skin) colour. An ethnicity is Caribbean or African (or subsets thereof). "Black" gives the reader no indication of where the person is from, yet "Trinidadian" or "Ugandan" does.

Secondly, I brought up ethnicities since they too, as a "specific group" share many of the same characteristics as a religious group- they have a specific identity and heritage, follow certain cultural practices, have very specific needs and hold some common viewpoints. It can very well be argued under your circumstances that they too do not need special protection- "race" and "colour" covers physical appearance, "expression" covers their opinions and cultural practices, and "assembly" and "association" covers their right to form groups. It can very well be argued using your standards that "ethnicity" is also superfluous because it's protections can be covered elsewhere (even if you don't choose to be a particular ethnicity).

By 1.6 not defining religion for the rest of the constitution - the rest of the references are not "stacked" upon and do fall at all with its removal.

It doesn't matter if 1.6 specifically "defines" religion- the fact of the matter is, the Constitution provides protection specifically for religion. If 1.6 is removed, the specific protection is gone, and whatever reasons for removing 1.6 are sure to be applied at other instances of the word "religion" (since those also cover specific protections regarding religion). If the Constitutional authority is going to deem that religion affords no special protection it shall provide it none, regardless of where it is in the document.

And still shines with its irrelevance to the thread, especially since as I mentioned that just gives the ability to restrict freedom of expression in commercial activities in the sense of allowing protection of trade secrets and such.

No. I have read it about as literally as I could and I don't read *anything* that specifically states Article 13 is about trade secrets. Regardless, my point was that since you believe religion is adequately protected by other rights- such as expression- bringing up where expression is restricted (such as Article 13) are worth mentioning. You dismissing it is not does not preclude you from answering what I wrote.

Again, nonsense, since 1.6 only applies to "public institutions" and a shop keeper most certainly is not a "public institution", and the mention here of having to consider an expression of religion rests in no way on 1.6. It is independent of that. Restrictions upon discrimination by private citizens in commercial activities is dealt with in other laws, not this one.

Your argument is that "freedom of expression" can be used to protect religion. I stated that Article 13 provides certain cases were expression can be restricted, one of which is in commercial activities, which could lead to religions being "restricted out" of stores and restaurants (or any other facility/entity that is used for commercial purposes) under the provisions limiting expression. The privateness of the institution is immaterial (since the government is involved in commerce and commercial service to its citizens), although I honestly doubt a shop owner who sells to the public doesn't have to adhere to public laws (such as the Constitution) since they deal with the public, even though the shop is a private business.

Yes, it is.

...and I already responded with an argument about why it is not. Are you going to address what I wrote or again just wave it off?

Nope, since all lawful expression any religion can take falls under 1.1-5.

...and again, I already addressed this as well, so, again, are you going to address what I wrote or continue brushing it off?

That's not what the law was for - the monopoly of the Church of Sweden had been broken around a hundred years prior to that, and the law of 1951 came before the constitution of 1975. That constitution (the one we're discussing) obsoleted it, so that law is irrelevant.

"The Church and State became a marriage made in monopoly heaven and regulation through Parliament would last almost four centuries.

The Swedes were a God-fearing bunch until competition challenged the consecrated cartel in late 18th century. In 1860, a change in law allowed Lutheran Swedes to leave the church so long as they converted to another religion.

The right to stand outside any religious denomination was only established in 1951, in the Law on Freedom of Religion.

In 2000 the church and state divorced after decades of debate, placing it on the same footing as other religious organisations."

http://www.thelocal.se/4579/20060811/

Like I said, the freedom of religion is just one part of the ultimate "seperation of Church and State".

I see no beneficial reason to keep it.

Why?

You fail to understand the constitution once more.

You've failed to address any of my points.

He shall furthermore be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, or to belong to a political association, religious community or other association for opinion referred to in sentence one.

The freedom not to worship is stated right there - you cannot be coerced to be religious (looky here, the constitution even states that religion is an opinion).

Sounds good to me.

What would you say to such a measure, Fass?

The paragraph in Article 2 says that a Swede cannot be compelled to participate or belong to any group that espouses beliefs or opinions, including a religious community. It does not specifically say "religion is an opinion". It says that religious communities have opinions (which shouldn't be surprising- they just act them out which makes it more than just a thought (i.e. opinion) but a practice (i.e. a way of life)), that those communities are a group and that a Swede cannot be compelled to belong to said group or any other group that holds an opinion.

I don't see where in Article 2 that it states a Swede cannot be compelled *not* to belong to a group. It's very clear that the Government cannot force a Swede to join a group but I don't see where it says the Government cannot block a Swede's entry into a particular group- they're not forcing choice, they're just limiting the choices that can be made. Other articles (such as 14, 15 and 1.6) limit the reasons why the Government can limit choice but it doesn't change the fact a limit can be placed.

As it regards to atheism, since "freedom of thought/conscience/belief" is not enshrined (in any manifestation) it is open to Governmental attack. Article 1.5 (freedom of association) does not state that specific organizations can qualify for protection (just that the right to form said groups is protected). Article 2 does not limit the Government from not allowing "atheism" to be group to join. Article 13 allows freedom of expression (where atheism presumably falls) to "otherwise be restricted only where particularly important grounds so warrant" (whatever that actually means). Article 14 states that organizations that are active in persecution lose whatever freedoms they may gain through 1.5, so if atheists are ever accused of persecution they're in trouble. Article 15 prevents ethnicity, race or colour and Article 16 says the same about gender. No article protects the holding of "thoughts"- just the fact that you can express them. So unless atheism becomes a religion (the only line of belief that's actually Constitutionally protected) the Constitution will need some work before atheism is adequately protected.

I actually think if Article 1.6 read "freedom of thought and belief: that is, the freedom to formulate and hold thoughts and beliefs and put said beliefs in practise, whether alone or in the company of others", you'd solve the problem of the Constitution not protecting the holding of opinions and atheism (as it is a thought and possibly a belief, depending on who you talk to) while also protecting religion (as it is a thought and belief process one puts into practice whether alone or with others). It'd also mean that lifestyle choices based around a belief system like veganism would also be Constitutionally protected. There may be another Article or subsection of this version of 1.6 that limits lifestyle choices if said choices abridge the lifestyle choice of someone else (so we don't get serial murderers claiming Constitutional protection), but at least we'll have produced something better than the original.

That being said, there is neither need nor justification for any special mentioning of protection of religious expression in the Constitution, because the legality of any act of expression should in no way depend on the (non)religiosity of its nature. Leaving such an article in there only creates the impression that it does or should.

Religious persecution in Europe has a long history and "freedom of religion" was enacted as way to counteract that. It is true that the rise today of areligiosity in much of the Western world makes the Constitutional verbiage contained within "freedom of religion" is an anachronism given that the idea and lifestyle of "areligiosity" now also requires protection, however, it is important not to undermine religious communities in the process. The needs of the areligious need to be addressed, I'm in full agreement with you but they cannot come at the expense of the needs of the religious.