Home » Intelligent Design » Is being pro-Castro more acceptable than being pro-ID?

Is being pro-Castro more acceptable than being pro-ID?

[From an attorney friend of mine:] Bill, here is an item you might want to “blog” about, relating to the ACLU and the obligation of public schools to keep books in their libraries that take positions some parents object to: An AP story today (6/22/06) in the Washington Times is headlined “ACLU: Miami can’t pull pro-Cuba books,” refers to books in Miami-Dade County’s 33 public schools’ libraries that depict Cuban children happy with Castro. The school board voted 6-3 last week to remove the books, “Vamos a Cuba,” from 33 schools, saying the books were inaccurate and had omissions about life under communism, and thus were inappropriate for children aged 5 to 7 who are the intended age-group for the book. The board acted after complaints in April 2006 by a former political prisoner of Castro, now in the US, who said that his personal experience demonstrates the books are false. The Student Govt. Assn., represented by ACLU lawyer JoNel Newman, sued to keep the books in the libraries, claiming free speech rights. The relevance to the evolution issue: in the Dover case in Pennsylvania, part of the suit related to the fact that the anti-evolution book Of Pandas and People is in the school library. ACLU was counsel for plaintiffs in Dover. Now, ACLU in Dover did not ask the court to compel removal of the books from the school library, but did ask that the students not be told in class that the book was in the library, or about the fact that the book criticises evolution. Now that ACLU is working to ensure that a pro-Castro propaganda book, stated to be false by one with personal knowledge of the facts, aimed at 5-year-olds, is kept in the Miami-Dade County school libraries, will ACLU now work to ensure that Pandas and People remains in the Dover school library?

And compare the following:

In Melvindale, Michigan, a Detroit suburb, the school board voted to purchase a number of books (including Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box) that detail specifically scientific challenges to standard materialistic theories of evolution.380 This seemingly innocuous action provoked the National Center for Science Education (“NCSE”), a Darwinist lobby in Berkeley, California, to issue a creationism “alert” on its website. NCSE director Eugenie Scott has warned that the inclusion of books such as Behe’s would have a chilling effect on science education.381 But such hysteria not only betrays the fear that always accompanies a loss of cultural control, but represents a clear attempt to suppress controversy rather than to enlist it in the service of science education, as the law not only allows but would now encourage. MORE

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Is being pro-Castro more acceptable than being pro-ID?

  1. Passing those ubiquitous pro-Castro tables in the University–just for orneriness I’d sometimes pause and say that I didn’t much care for the man except … Except what? Except that he shoots homosexuals. Same thing at the pro-Mao tables. Can’t stand the man except–except that he’s solved the drug problem. Oh? Yes, he executes the users.

    They celebrate sodomy and swoon for Castro, they hate fundamentalism and apologize for radical Islam. There is a logic to it all, I believe. It’s that they hate the biblical God. And so there’s a hierarchy to their loyalties. Darwin is first for what should be obvious reasons and then comes the enemy of their enemy who is you know who.

  2. This is a great parallel. You can’t have this both ways. Either books must be in the library when some are opposed to it, or books must be removed from the library if some are opposed to it.

  3. On the other hand libraries can’t buy all books and so somebody has to choose. You shall know them by how they choose.

  4. 4
    formlessandvoid

    It used to be that defending free speech meant “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (commonly, but probably mistakenly, attributed to Voltaire). But these days it means “free speech for me and only those who agree with me”. None can do better than ACLU’s forbidding its members publicly to criticize its own policies. Free speech or enforcement of dogma?

    I thought Leftists were supposed to be smart, but they can’t see the inherent contradiction here. And they haven’t learned that censorship doesn’t work, especially in this age when one can read all kinds of stuff on the ‘net and is not confined to the good old brick-and-mortar libraries. On the contrary, the more they try to suppress opposite views, the more people will keep exploring them if only out of curiosity. Maybe there’s indeed a vast right-wing conspiracy within ACLU, NCSE, etc.

  5. “I thought Leftists were supposed to be smart, but they can’t see the inherent contradiction here.”

    Its not that they can’t see it, it is that they don’t care. Free speech is a pretext, just tolerance is only a pretext, to force their point of view on those who disagree with them.

    The appeals to free speech and tolerance would not be half as effective as they are if they actually applied such principles consistently.

Leave a Reply