Women still can't endanger themselves in sports

Do you notice anything unusual about these girls? The picture below is published through the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten (Scanpix).

The image shows the American World Champion in ski jumping, Lindsey Van, and the livelier bronze winner from Norway, Anette Sagen. In the world championship in Liberec, we witnessed the first major ski jumping competition for women. As we can see, they look happy! But when we look back to the 1930s, female ski jumpers were used as interval entertainment. People were amazed over seeing girls jump. Old prejudice has survived for a very long time since then.

A few years ago, I saw Anette Sagen in Holmenkollen for the first time. She was interval entertainment because she flew down the K120 hill without a problem. She landed on the 131 meter spot! Amazing! The hill record is 136 meters...

Surprisingly, women can't compete in K120 hills today. The old prejudices still live on. In the world championship in Liberec, Van and Sagen were only allowed to compete in the K90 hill. What a shame! Even the K90 hill competition for men remains from the past.

There is not a single reason to keep women from jumping, except that there should be more female competitors on a higher level first. But the reason for this must be obvious. The prejudice from the past is based on that females will hurt themselves in sports. If a boy is sent to the hospital, no one thinks that he is foolhardy. Just unlucky!

Hijab - a religious symbol on the police uniform?

A uniform is not supposed to change in form or character. The hijab is allowed head clothing on police women in UK and Sweden. Discussions have recently bloomed among Norwegians. Suddenly, I need to answer a question that I never have thought about. Is it OK to allow religious women to wear this religious piece of cloth on the police uniform?

Those who hate Islam will almost certainly protest against the hijab. Those women who fight against oppression from islamic regimes may also protest. And true liberalists would certainly make the question a personal choice, not a rule. I think it is a good idea to adapt the hijab to the police uniform, as seen in the picture above. On the contrary, a choice of a red kerchief may not be appropriate.

Some want to compare the Balaclava helmet with the hijab. What if the police wore those? Would that be unacceptable? Actually, the terror police (around the world) do use the balaclava today. But still, it is not a religious symbol anyway.



The hijab is very controversial. In many cases, both the hijab, niqab, and burqa are used to oppress women, mostly in islamic regimes. On the other hand, many women may feel free if they are allowed to wear these religious head clothings. Beware of their religious feelings! The denial of hijab on women's police uniforms is therefore excluding. Islamic women may not choose to be police women.



Don't forget that the hijab also opens up for the turban! The question must therefore be extended to include all religious head clothings. Should it be allowed to use all religious head clothings on police uniforms in any country? And are the original police uniforms really symbol free?



A hijab is definitively made a religous symbol. But the head clothing in itself is not religious. It's just covering parts of the face. Face cover in general is very useful in severe cold or sandy areas. Therefore, face cover can't be controversial. The real problem is the variety of religious symbols that can appear on a uniform, which is supposed to be uniform.

What do you think the todays police clothings symbol? I think they remind me of the military, military parades and military regimes. The military uniforms symbol force and power. You may disagree. I think it is better to include different varieties of uniforms, although they don't become perfectly uniform.

Do you mind?



Read more.

Creationism is a sketch

Many conservative Christians do not accept the Theory of Evolution. Modern Christians, as I define them, can combine evolutionism and Christianity with no problems. Fundamentalists cannot. That's why those kind of Christians are called fundamentalists. But whatever a person believes, creationism cannot be an alternative explanation of world creation. The evolutionism and other sciences are too advanced for such silly statements. Who does really believe that lions originally ate grass? Creationism is therefore only a sketch of imagination, not based on pure logic.


When I think of conservative Christians, the first country I associate with fundamentalism is the United States of America. Norway was by the way christianized in the 10th century. This was late compared to most countries in Europe. If I compare U.S. with Norway, I must pick a northern state with size of 125 000 square miles and 4,7 million citizens. In addition, I look for coast line and snow capped mountain tops. I think Minnesota is the most comparable state, although lakes and rivers remind me more of Finland.

In Norway, about 59 % of the population do "believe" in the Theory of Evolution. And one out of ten Norwegians (Christian conservatives or not) do not believe in Darwin. Those are bad numbers! But the resistance in U.S. is even greater! One out of three Americans do not believe in Theory of Evolution. A huge difference! Although Norway has extremely high percent of literacy.

I do actually know the leading spokesman for creationism in Norway, but I have never discussed the topic with him. I am rather disappointed over the physician I once knew. What does he have on his mind? He must be stubborn!

I divide religion and policy. It is unimportant to teach creationism at schools. Mainly because the idea of creationism doesn't make sense. For those who prefer to continue to believe in the Bible, that is their choice. But why should a whole society listen to their beliefs? That doesn't make sense either, if the answer is yes. The Bible is not the whole truth.

Yes. I am wrong. Creationism is not a sketch after all. It is written down and hasn't been updated in 2000 years.

Freedom of expression prevailed!

The government of Norway has suggested to remove a "sleeping" paragraph of blasphemy. The last convict got a 55 Euro fine in 1912 (todays value) for writing an article called "The Great Humbug". This further step, which has the Norwegian Parliaments full support, will theoretically increase the freedom of speech. But a small party in the government coalition, did almost a horse-trade when the Prime Minister of Norway gave the green light to continue protect religious feelings. The government only embarrassed themselves by doing so.



The small party, which is supported by mainly farmers and compete for Christian voters, suggested to extend the excisting paragraph of "racism". The paragraph of "racism" forbids among other things malicious remarks based on faith or view of life. The idea of the law extension was to stop offensive religious statements, or in other words blasphemy. The intellectualists raged over the suggested decrease in the freedom of speech. Suddenly there were criticism from every source, even from own members.

The Prime Minister of Norway held later a press conference to solve the misunderstandings. The day after pulled the leader of the small party the suggestion back. Freedom of expression is indeed an important fundament of the democracy. Only fundamentalistic regimes are interested in such laws that protects religious feelings, like Iran, Libya and Saudi-Arabia. The freedom of expression should, on the other hand, be used wisely.

The whole story ended in embarrassment. They should have known better.

May the Force be with the Man from Snåsa!

A healer has caught the attention of Norwegian media recently. Joralf Gjerstad is known as "the Man from Snåsa" (North of Trondheim) through a release of a book about him. This wizard has suddenly become a subject on everyones lips. It's not the first time it is written a book about his skills. But media didn't embrace the idea before now.



Many people support the idea that Gjerstad has helped them. There is absolutely something about him. He is certainly a respectable man. But does he really have healing skills? Science is based on probability. If healing really helps, it is like throwing a dice. Either you get low or high numbers. You'll never know. The outcome is equally high and low numbers over time. Science opens for coincidence. But science also opens for the Placebo effect. That is truly interesting. People that think they got real treatment, feel better condition than those who didn't get treatment (of any type).

Even Norwegian politicians have embraced this wizard. And the Minister of Health have been criticized for supporting his ideas. The defenders of healing have counter attacked the so called "arrogant" scientists. They claim that science can't explain everything. Discussing the healing science has been out of the question.

It's tempting for scientists to say that healing is complete rubbish. But science does not work this way, either. Science supports the idea of Placebo effect. You see? Who would actually tell a person with cancer that healing is complete rubbish? I would only feel sorry if I did. That would not make the ill feel better! "The man of Snåsa" is quite the opposite to this suggested lack of behaviour. He makes people feel better! And they thank him afterwards!

Personally, I do not think that tumors disappear by healing. On the other hand, healing can't hurt anyone. Unless healing replaces documentated treatment, which can be harmful (according to science). What really matters is that healers make people feel better.

Cheers!