Swedish Parliament has recently passed a very controversial law giving FRA (National Defensce Radio Establishment) more possibilities to bug telephone and internet traffic passing the Swedish border. The law is controversial indeed.
Today, Dagen reports that already in the 90-ies FRA has bugged the leader of the Word of Life Church in Uppsala, Ulf Ekman, because of his missionary contacts with Russia. Apparently, FRA does not need a law at all, they seemed to think they can do whatever they like to.
Stefan Swärd, leader for another church, EFK, has put questions to FRA boss Ingvar Åkesson. Relevant questions. Why was this bugging done? Who ordered it? Have more christian leaders/organisations being bugged? What does the new law mean for the future concerning religious institutions? We wait for some good answers, if they exist.
In Sweden there is freedom of religion guaranteed. There are also laws protecting personal integrity and guaranteeing pastors and priests the right to be silent about things they have heard in confidence. How then can it be possible that FRA is bugging a pastor? Apparently they have been violating the constitution. What does this mean for missionary organisations in Sweden? Can we speak freely on the phone with our partners, or do we have to be more careful - not because of some other regimes, condemned by democratic Sweden, but because of our own governmental organisations?
Freedom of religion and protection of personal integrity are cornerstones of our society. I would hope they will remain so in future. FRA needs to be controlled in a better way. Apparently.
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Are believers stupid?
According to Dagen (http://www.dagen.se/dagen/Article.aspx?ID=154898 and http://www.dagen.se/dagen/Article.aspx?ID=154899) the danishprofessor Nyborg has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than atheists. His research was done in 137 countries, but is not new. See http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/05/554043-professor-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers from feb 2007!). But I tend to agree to the english prof Martin, who according to Dagen thinks this is ridiculous.
Satistics is not easy. I would like to see the research methodology, the factual results and the statistical methods. Interpreting statistiscs is difficult. All we who have worked with statistics know that. Thre might be problems there in this case. Statistic correlation is not always the same as factual causality. Many times there can be alternative explanation models. Further, IQ is a difficult thing in itself. I am not sure you can just use the tests in different cultures, the tests have been developed in a western context. I am not sure that the results are totally independent from the testees background and education. There might be a bias there. Could it be that poor and religious countries give a lower average IQ because of other factors than religion? The results for the US - high IQ and high religiosity - talk against Nyborgs conclusions. Dagen writes: "There are several exceptions in the research, among others the US. There the IQ is high, even if the is a high percent of religious people, which the researchers explain through the many europeans have emigrated to the US because of their religion, and after that given their religiosity to coming generations." A nice explanation but I don't buy it. It must have been the more stupid part of the Europeans who emigrated (they were religious), but then it does not fit the results. In that case Americans should be more stupid than Europeans. Which is rubbish.
And then - what does it mean that 1% in the United Arab Emirates doubts the exitence of God, and 64% in Sweden does that? How free does an individual feel to express that kind of doubt in the Emirates compared to Sweden? What does the educational system mean here? Social pressures?
What had Swedes answered in the 19th century? Surely, the percentage of believers would have been much higher. Were Swedes more stupid back then?
As I understand it the researchers have compared the percentage of religiosity in the countries to the avergae IQ. But how is the connection between the two? Are the individuals with lowest IQ the religious ones? Or the other way around maybe? I do not think that it is possible at all to prove a real correlation between the IQ of people and their belief in God. The number of variables is too large, the uncertainties in what we measure too large.
But of course, an alternative explanation would be that I am too stupid to understand. After all, I believe in God.
Satistics is not easy. I would like to see the research methodology, the factual results and the statistical methods. Interpreting statistiscs is difficult. All we who have worked with statistics know that. Thre might be problems there in this case. Statistic correlation is not always the same as factual causality. Many times there can be alternative explanation models. Further, IQ is a difficult thing in itself. I am not sure you can just use the tests in different cultures, the tests have been developed in a western context. I am not sure that the results are totally independent from the testees background and education. There might be a bias there. Could it be that poor and religious countries give a lower average IQ because of other factors than religion? The results for the US - high IQ and high religiosity - talk against Nyborgs conclusions. Dagen writes: "There are several exceptions in the research, among others the US. There the IQ is high, even if the is a high percent of religious people, which the researchers explain through the many europeans have emigrated to the US because of their religion, and after that given their religiosity to coming generations." A nice explanation but I don't buy it. It must have been the more stupid part of the Europeans who emigrated (they were religious), but then it does not fit the results. In that case Americans should be more stupid than Europeans. Which is rubbish.
And then - what does it mean that 1% in the United Arab Emirates doubts the exitence of God, and 64% in Sweden does that? How free does an individual feel to express that kind of doubt in the Emirates compared to Sweden? What does the educational system mean here? Social pressures?
What had Swedes answered in the 19th century? Surely, the percentage of believers would have been much higher. Were Swedes more stupid back then?
As I understand it the researchers have compared the percentage of religiosity in the countries to the avergae IQ. But how is the connection between the two? Are the individuals with lowest IQ the religious ones? Or the other way around maybe? I do not think that it is possible at all to prove a real correlation between the IQ of people and their belief in God. The number of variables is too large, the uncertainties in what we measure too large.
But of course, an alternative explanation would be that I am too stupid to understand. After all, I believe in God.
Är troende dummare?
Enligt Dagen (http://www.dagen.se/dagen/Article.aspx?ID=154898) har den danske professor Nyborg kommit fram till att religiösa har lägre IQ än ateister. Forskningen berör 137 länder. Att resultatet är omstritt är självklart. Varför detta kommer i tidningen idag kan man förresten undra, eftersom Nyborgs tolkning inte är så ny (se http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/05/554043-professor-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers från feb 2007!). Men jag är nog benägen att hålla med den engelska professor Martin, som enligt dagen menar att detta är skrattretande.
Statistik är vanskelig. Det vet alla som kan ämnet. Jag skulle nog vilja se underlaget för forskningen, de faktiska resultaten och sedan hur de har bearbetats statistiskt. Jag förmodar att en god statistiker skulle kunna hitta brister där. Denna typ av resultat är väldigt svåra att bevisa statistiskt, det kan ofta finnas alternativa möjligheter att lägga samband. Sedan är IQ i sig ingen lätt sak. Det är inte säkert att IQ tester ger en rättvisande bild om man tillämpar dem i olika kulturella miljöer. Testerna har utvecklats i en västerländsk kontext. Jag tror inte att de är helt oberoende av testpersonens uppfostran och utbildning. Redan där kan det gå snett. Där kan fattiga, mycket religiösa kulturer ge lägre IQ bara genom testets utformning. Har denna möjlighet beaktats? Att i USA hög IQ och hög procent religiositet går ihop pekar på detta. Dagen skriver: "Det finns dock flera undantag i undersökningen, bland annat exemplet USA. Där är intelligenskvoten hög, trots ett stort procentantal religiösa, något som i undersökningen förklaras med att många européer emigrerat till USA på grund av sin tro, och sedan överfört sin religiositet på kommande generationer." Det är ett roligt påhitt men då får man väl anta att det var den dummare delen av den europeiska befolkningen emigrerade (de var ju religiösa) men då stämmer inte resonemanget.
Jag fröstår från artiklarna att man har jämfört länders genomsnittliga IQ med landets genomsnittliga religiositet. Ytterligare en osäkerhetsfaktor. Hur är sambandet på individnivå? Är det individer med lägst IQ som är mera religiösa? Jag tror inte att det går att hitta ett sådant samband.
Jag tror faktiskt inte att - med tanke på alla osäkerheter och det stora antalet variabler - det över huvud taget går att bevisa ett samband mellan intelligens och Gudstro. Nyborg och hans medarbetare befinner sig på mycket tunnt is.
Naturligtvis finns en annan möjlighet. Nämligen att jag inget begriper för jag är dum. Jag tror ju på Gud.
Statistik är vanskelig. Det vet alla som kan ämnet. Jag skulle nog vilja se underlaget för forskningen, de faktiska resultaten och sedan hur de har bearbetats statistiskt. Jag förmodar att en god statistiker skulle kunna hitta brister där. Denna typ av resultat är väldigt svåra att bevisa statistiskt, det kan ofta finnas alternativa möjligheter att lägga samband. Sedan är IQ i sig ingen lätt sak. Det är inte säkert att IQ tester ger en rättvisande bild om man tillämpar dem i olika kulturella miljöer. Testerna har utvecklats i en västerländsk kontext. Jag tror inte att de är helt oberoende av testpersonens uppfostran och utbildning. Redan där kan det gå snett. Där kan fattiga, mycket religiösa kulturer ge lägre IQ bara genom testets utformning. Har denna möjlighet beaktats? Att i USA hög IQ och hög procent religiositet går ihop pekar på detta. Dagen skriver: "Det finns dock flera undantag i undersökningen, bland annat exemplet USA. Där är intelligenskvoten hög, trots ett stort procentantal religiösa, något som i undersökningen förklaras med att många européer emigrerat till USA på grund av sin tro, och sedan överfört sin religiositet på kommande generationer." Det är ett roligt påhitt men då får man väl anta att det var den dummare delen av den europeiska befolkningen emigrerade (de var ju religiösa) men då stämmer inte resonemanget.
Jag fröstår från artiklarna att man har jämfört länders genomsnittliga IQ med landets genomsnittliga religiositet. Ytterligare en osäkerhetsfaktor. Hur är sambandet på individnivå? Är det individer med lägst IQ som är mera religiösa? Jag tror inte att det går att hitta ett sådant samband.
Jag tror faktiskt inte att - med tanke på alla osäkerheter och det stora antalet variabler - det över huvud taget går att bevisa ett samband mellan intelligens och Gudstro. Nyborg och hans medarbetare befinner sig på mycket tunnt is.
Naturligtvis finns en annan möjlighet. Nämligen att jag inget begriper för jag är dum. Jag tror ju på Gud.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Living in two worlds
That is the name of an exhibition, which started today in Kiruna. It was made by young people, from three minoritiy peoples: Sámi, Jews and Roma. It is about what is is to be young and be 100% Swedish as well as 100% Sámi, or Jew or Roma. The exhibition is documentet at http://www.riksutstallningar.se/templates/Exhibition____5691.aspx (in swedish but there are some pics also). It is not about historical issues, not about the classical view of Sámi with reindeer in the mountains, but rather about identity in a modern world. The exhibition is good, and even better to hear the participants, eleven young people, telling about their experiences together. A report (also in swedish) can be downloaded at the website of the exhibition.
The experiences would be much the same I suspect, for young people belonging to other minority peoples in other countries. It would not be bad for Riksutställningar to have some info on this exhibition in English, in fact...
Well if you happen to be in Kiruna during the summer have a look at the exhibition which is in the town hall.
The experiences would be much the same I suspect, for young people belonging to other minority peoples in other countries. It would not be bad for Riksutställningar to have some info on this exhibition in English, in fact...
Well if you happen to be in Kiruna during the summer have a look at the exhibition which is in the town hall.
Do we need the union?
In Dagen (http://www.dagen.se/dagen/Article.aspx?ID=154846) pastor Tommy Lilja goes against the rather new section of one of the big trade unions, now having a department for church employees. Tommy means that we do not need the union, that being a pastor is not an ordinary job and he himself wors 60 hours a week and never takes full holidays and is doing fine.
I respect him, and am glad that all works so well for him. John, pastor at New Life Church is on the same line (http://synergistic.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/leadership-in-the-church-dealing-with-the-hireling-mentality/) and him I respect very much, knowing him a bit better than Tommy Lilja.
I myself am pastor in the Mission Covenant Church of Sweden MCCS. We had an employee organisation of our own, facilitating the setting of wages and helping in conflicts between employees and pastors. That organisation became part of the big union SKTF recently. I was content with our small orginasation, but my feeling about the present situation is not entirely positive. I can feel partly the same as John expresses in his blog. I really do not know whether I will stay in the union or not.
Why not? Because being a pastor is not an ordinary job. Because it is a call from the Lord. Because it is He who gives us our places and calls us. Because the pastor and the church must find consensus.
Why stay? Because many churches are not as ideal as they should be. Neither are pastors. Because I have seen more than one case where a very difficult situation for a pastor in a conflict with the church would have been much more difficult without the unions help. Because pastors do get unemployed and in Sweden you need to be organised to get any support of society. Swedish society works in a certain way, so you probably cannot draw any conclusions workable for all countries.
In a perfect world we do not need a union-like organisation. We would not need any paper regulating the relationship between the church and its pastors or deacons or other workers. But the world is no longer perfect, as can be read in Gen 3. Even Israel had to put in place worldly institutions. Even Paul struggled with some of his churches (just read 1 and 2 Cor).
In my church, I still feel that we talk as church leadership and pastors. We try to get consensus, I do not sense a feeling of "try to get out as much as possible out of negotiations". As long as things work as they do now, I can still be in the system. Called by God, to a place in this Swedish society, where unions are so important compared to many other countries. Maybe He calls some of us to be here like that, and others to live and serve in other ways.
I learned once that it is good for a missionary (and are we not that as pastors) to be as much as possible part of the society like other people. Not too rich, not too poor, experiencing life as anybody does. To be able to build relationships and to communicate the gospel in the best possible way.
I respect him, and am glad that all works so well for him. John, pastor at New Life Church is on the same line (http://synergistic.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/leadership-in-the-church-dealing-with-the-hireling-mentality/) and him I respect very much, knowing him a bit better than Tommy Lilja.
I myself am pastor in the Mission Covenant Church of Sweden MCCS. We had an employee organisation of our own, facilitating the setting of wages and helping in conflicts between employees and pastors. That organisation became part of the big union SKTF recently. I was content with our small orginasation, but my feeling about the present situation is not entirely positive. I can feel partly the same as John expresses in his blog. I really do not know whether I will stay in the union or not.
Why not? Because being a pastor is not an ordinary job. Because it is a call from the Lord. Because it is He who gives us our places and calls us. Because the pastor and the church must find consensus.
Why stay? Because many churches are not as ideal as they should be. Neither are pastors. Because I have seen more than one case where a very difficult situation for a pastor in a conflict with the church would have been much more difficult without the unions help. Because pastors do get unemployed and in Sweden you need to be organised to get any support of society. Swedish society works in a certain way, so you probably cannot draw any conclusions workable for all countries.
In a perfect world we do not need a union-like organisation. We would not need any paper regulating the relationship between the church and its pastors or deacons or other workers. But the world is no longer perfect, as can be read in Gen 3. Even Israel had to put in place worldly institutions. Even Paul struggled with some of his churches (just read 1 and 2 Cor).
In my church, I still feel that we talk as church leadership and pastors. We try to get consensus, I do not sense a feeling of "try to get out as much as possible out of negotiations". As long as things work as they do now, I can still be in the system. Called by God, to a place in this Swedish society, where unions are so important compared to many other countries. Maybe He calls some of us to be here like that, and others to live and serve in other ways.
I learned once that it is good for a missionary (and are we not that as pastors) to be as much as possible part of the society like other people. Not too rich, not too poor, experiencing life as anybody does. To be able to build relationships and to communicate the gospel in the best possible way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
