From: Bertvan@aol.com
>Many facts of history are in dispute, yet the historians don't take to the
>courts to ensure only one version is taught. Historians are content to
live
>with a diversity of views. Even histories of religions manage to
accommodate
>different versions. Debate over the history of the Holocaust evokes great
>emotion, but so far no one has tried to have the minority view legally
>declared "not history".
You're wrong. Some countries have laws against Holocaust denial. Here in
Britain, we don't have such a law. But, in a recent libel case, I believe
the judge, in his summing up, said something to the effect that the
plaintiff, David Irving, a Holocaust denier, was not a historian. (I think
the defendant had, among other things, attacked Irving's status as a
historian.)
If the law refers to religion (as your constitution apparently does), then
it may well be necessary to ask the courts to decide whether something is
science or religion. If unable to do so, the court would be unable to uphold
the law.
Richard Wein (Tich)
"When I told people I wanted to be a comedian, they laughed at me. Well,
they're not laughing now!" -- Bob Monkhouse, comedian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 20 2000 - 14:47:50 EDT