My response to Marcus Svensson

There was recently an article in Smålandsposten about the medium Terry Evans conducting a seance in a public building he had rented. I was interviewed. An opinion piece was written by Marcus Svensson criticising the critique that I and some other people had of the decision to let Mr Evans rent an auditorium in a school building. This is my response, after Mr Svensson's critique:

Rätt att hyra ut till Terry Evans

Det spiritistiska mediet Terry Evans höll nyligen en storseans i Katedralskolans aula. Det har fått föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildnings ordförande Martin Rundkvist att...

(This is my translation of the above text into English, it should give the general idea although I am sure it contains errors.)

Correct to rent to Terry Evans
The spiritist medium Terry Evans recently held a seance in the auditorium of Katedralskolan. This have lead the president of Vetenskap och Folkbildning, Martin Rundkvist to react: ”A school is a building where young students are taught how the world works”, he says to Smålandsposten and insinuate that Evans activities are now legitimized by the Municipality of Växjö
Vetenskap och Folkbildning has as it purpose to promote scientific methods to deal with myths, spiritual, or religious believes about how the world works. Therefore it is surprising that Rundkvist argues as if school buildings are sacred, in the sense of reserved for the profane. As if the building it self has a specific essence.
Not using a school building after the students gone home after the day should be considered capital destruction and mismanagement of taxpayers' money. To this must be added that a municipality always should base their decisions on freedom of assembly and equal treatment in matters of renting out property, not base it on the notion that it hovers some kind of magic over auditoriums in high schools.
History have taught us that there are limits to how intolerant a state can be toward religious movements. Therefore we don't need a modernised konventikelplakat at a municipality level, that forbids spiritual gatherings under a layman's management. Note that it is religious practices that are protected by the Constitution , since it is not possible to legislate precisely what is religion and what is not. This issue also have a bearing on how municipalities relate to established churches
Now, admittedly Vetenskap och Folkbildning is a small organisation , member wise about half as large as the smallest denomination Seventh Day Adventists , and therefore without much influence. But this example shows that even in an enlightened society there are pressure groups who challenge the freedoms of religion, speech and assembly. That we should be vigilant about.

My response to Marcus Svensson

Although Marcus Svensson's defence of Terry Evans right to use a public school building for his business is aimed at Martin Rundkvist and the Swedish sceptics (Vetenskap och Folkbildning) I feel myself entitled to respond since I am very much present in the article printed in Smålandsposten leading up to Mr Svensson's opinion piece.

In his opinion piece Mr Svensson argues from a complete misunderstanding of what a municipality can do, what kind of event was held at the school building, and what I, and I guess Dr. Rundkvist, think of religious freedom.

There are among some people a misunderstanding of what freedom of religion, speech and assembly actually means. But I am sure Mr Svensson don't believe that just because every individual has the right to speak their mind that implies that Smålandsposten has to print it. It should be equally clear that a municipality doesn't have to rent out their property to everyone that can pay them. What is discussed is where the municipality should draw the line.

(In case I am wrong and Mr Svensson is arguing for the indiscriminate use of school buildings I am sure we can start a strip club after school hours or maybe let HA rent it for working on their bikes.)

I believe that the essence of Mr Svensson's critique is that spiritism is a religion and should be given the same right of assembly as any other denomination, also the right to conduct services. It happens that I have visited a number of services for other denominations than spiritism, and I have never had to buy a ticket. According to Mr Svensson it is impossible to legislate what is religion and that is why it is the religious activity that is protected. So to what kind of event do you buy tickets? The critique from Mr Svensson seems to be based on the idea that what transpired at the seance was a religious practice. But if one see it as a business that line of arguing falls flat.

So what kind of businesses would Mr Svensson have the municipality make a profit from, renting out the public buildings? If any business at all, why not a multilevel marketing event or perhaps someone selling tree bark with a claim that it cures HIV? I think that the municipality actually has to make a judgement call concerning the scientific validity and the ethical merit before renting out their school buildings. It is not easy, and mistakes will be made, but that is no reason to give up on making judgements.

I believe that Mr Evans is running a business where he claims to deliver a service that he has no evidence for providing, except that people trust him, and it was wrong to let him rent the school building just based on that fact. Mr Svensson is unfortunately confused by the fact that Mr Evans business model is based on spiritism.

Now I happen to agree with Mr Svensson that spiritism is a religion. That doesn't imply that it can't be criticised, one thing that history has taught us is that exempting religion from criticism is very, very bad.
There are two different kinds of critique that you can direct at a religion, scientific and philosophical (theological). Many religions today avoid overt scientific statements and are of limited concern for Vetenskap och Folkbildning. Spiritism claim to be able to connect people with ”the other side”. That is a bold claim that can be tested and has been tested, so far the spiritist have not been able to conclusively show that they can do what they say they can.
This is what concerns me, and I believe Dr. Rundkvist, that unfounded claims are made that can be scientifically tested. It doesn't matter if it is made in the name of religion or not. A municipality should not be obliged to aid a religion, political party, business or other organisation that does that.
(I could expand on this point but it is probably best if I don't since this post is already long enough.)

Finally, it is true that Vetenskap och Folkbildning is a small organisation, that doesn't imply that they are wrong. If it did it would go without saying that Mr Svensson is wrong criticising Vetenskap och Folkbildning since he is only one individual.