Le sticker creationiste anticonstitutionnel aux USA

[Tom]

L'autocollant niant la qualite de "fait" a la theorie de l'evolution est declare anticonstitutionnel par un juge federal des USA.

Tom

[Julien]

Une critique intéressante sur le sujet :

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200501.htm

Dogma? What religious dogma? The only religious dogma on display is that of the Judge and the ACLU who get paranoid when they think they sniff someone else’s religion, whether or not any is present. They are like the drunk who thought the whole world smelled rotten when a practical joker had smeared limburger cheese in his beard. For the life of them, these attorneys, judges and Darwin-worshippers cannot see the religious dogma is their own. What is dogma, if not an insistence that other views must be excluded from free inquiry and critical thinking? This decision is disappointing, because it seemed like a slam-dunk. Anyone with common sense would agree that controversial ideas should be examined with critical thinking. It takes the convoluted arguments of Charlie worshippers to explain why their buddha needs special protection from scrutiny.

The “reverend” Barry Lynn shows his true colors, for any that think his title means anything. His god (little g) is merely a figment of imagination that has absolutely nothing to do with the naturalistic, mechanistic, directionless universe he assumes he lives in. Why is he always on the side of the liberal Democrats on every political issue, just like Big Science? (see 12/02/2004 entry). Connect the dots. Lynn’s position is not about scientific accuracy or protection of religion, but about naturalistic philosophy, which almost always overlaps with political liberalism and moral relativism. (See Answers in Genesis editorial from 04/08/2004 on the Cobb County textbook controversy.)

Here is another case of a single, unelected federal judge (this one a Clinton appointee) trumping the will of the people and their elected representatives. And notice: he did it not for something they did or said, but for something he thought they might have meant: the wording of the sticker appeared (not in reality, but in suspicion) to be endorsing (start the somber, ominous music) that deep, dark, evil, malicious doctrine of: (shall we utter the word?) creationism! Aaaaaiiiiiiaaaa!

So now Emperor Charlie gets to parade naked in front of the crowd, and little boys with eyes open, who wonder why everyone is praising the invisible robes, are forbidden to say anything. The royal robes cannot be “denigrated”, even indirectly; in fact, it is against the law now to even entertain the thought in your mind that something is wrong with this picture. The potential effects of this kind of legal reasoning (or lack of it) on the decisions, discussions and even motives of locally-elected officials are chilling. Parents, students, if you are mad about this, keep the heat on. Just don’t underestimate the power of Charlie’s thought police and inquisitors. Dogmatism is all the more reason to turn on the floodlights.[/quote]

[Jean-Francois]

Une critique intéressante sur le sujet

"Intéressante", pour Julien, veut dire "qui est biaisée en faveur du créationnisme". On trouvera la décision du juge, qui ménage beaucoup les créationnistes/IDéistes, sur cette page.

What is dogma, if not an insistence that other views must be excluded from free inquiry and critical thinking?

Drôle de définition, très partiale: on dirait qu'un dogme, pour lui, c'est toujours le fait "des autres". Un dogme, ce n'est jamais sa vision des choses.

This decision is disappointing, because it seemed like a slam-dunk. Anyone with common sense would agree that controversial ideas should be examined with critical thinking.

Fausse présentation des choses, du vrai créationnisme quoi. D'une part, en tant que fait scientifique, l'évolution n'est pas controversée. D'autre part, personne n'empêche de critiquer ni de réviser les théories de l'évolution, tant que cela reste une critique appuyée scientifiquement. Et, personne n'a réussi à faire passer l'ID ou le créationnisme pour ce qu'ils ne sont pas: de la science.

De toute façon, il est clair dans le texte que Julien poste que la question de l'aspect scientifique est négligeable. Tout est politico-judiciaire pour les créationnistes: "Here is another case of a single, unelected federal judge (this one a Clinton appointee) trumping the will of the people and their elected representatives". J'ai tendance à croire que ces "grands amis" de la pensée critique feraient tout pour l'abolir s'ils avaient le pouvoir d'imposer leur dogme biblique dans les écoles.

O combien Julien aimerait que le Canada soit aussi scientifiquement arriéré que certains coins des U.S.A.

Jean-François