It could be that many of you think that I was far too aggressive when I attacked this man's religious beliefs, and unfortunately I have to agree with you that I was too aggressive. I want you to understand, however, that I wasn't attacking the man's religious beliefs as such, and I have never attacked another person this way just because he or she was religious.
No, I was attacking this particular person because he was a creationist who worked as a science teacher, and who used his position as a science teacher to foist his religious beliefs on children. He actually forced his pupils to repeat his creationist beliefs if they wanted to get a passing grade, can you believe it?
Also, this man was utterly shameless about what he was doing. He was interviewed by Sweden's biggest and most prestigious daily newspaper, and he frankly admitted that he taught his middle school pupils that the Bible was the only source of scientific knowledge that they needed, because the Bible was right about everything it said. It was this claim of his that I was challenging in my letters to him. I wanted him to explain to me how the Bible could be so utterly trustworthy when it contradicted itself so many times. And his reply to me was that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, it just tells the same story from different points of view.
Just for the sake of the argument, imagine that you yourself had fiddled with the truth and told the same story in two quite different, and mutually exclusive, ways. Imagine too that someone pointed this out to you. Instead of being embarrassed, you would frankly admit that you had told the story differently, but you had not been lying at all, because the two mutually exlusive versions of the story were both gospel truths, just told from two different points of view! Could any of you be so shameless as to make such a statement and expect to get away with it? I doubt it. But this creationist teacher was that shameless. The reason why he was writing a book, by the way, was that he needed a school book that taught creationism in Swedish in a way that was suitable for children, and no such book existed. So he had to write it himself, which is why he was enlisting my help, apparently expecting me to actually give it to him.
Looking back, I can see that I went about this whole affair in a way that was utterly improductive. If I really wanted to force this teacher to change the things he taught his pupils I should have contacted his principal, not written letters to the man himself. And I should perhaps have contacted the Swedish National School Inspection, too. I can't be proud of my own behaviour here. But the whole thing made a lasting impression on me and helped cement my conviction that I myself am a non-religious person.
Ann
