Rewriting history (reloaded) - IHT Letters To The Editor

Praise the International Herald Tribune. First for publishing another blogule of mine (even if slightly edited* to fit a wider audience than this utterly incorrect blog), second for giving it a title I've been mantrazing for a few years.

Actually, I mentioned "Rewriting History" in one of the few blogules published by "Le Figaro" before Sarkozy became Editor in Chief. Back then, I noticed the irony in the way Dubya compared himself to Roosevelt and Churchill ("Reecriture de l'Histoire - GW Bush le nouveau FDR ?" - 20040607).

I guess "rewriting history" could be considered today's international pastime on steroids.

Anyway... For those who missed my latest ranting on Abe** and/or reached their newstands to late, here is the letter as published in today's IHT*** :

Rewriting History
Your Dec. 16 edition delivered two rather disheartening insights on the way history is being taught.
In "Confronting Holocaust denial" (Views), Ayaan Ali Hirsi reveals how the Holocaust is not only absent from textbooks in many Muslim countries but also still considered a great idea by many young people.
In the news report "Japan passes measure for patriotic education," an education reform is not only meant to keep the Japanese people in the dark regarding the terrible war crimes committed during Hirohito's reign, but also to revive ultranationalism.
Perhaps worst of all: None of this comes as a surprise. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is on a permanent revisionist road show, while Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan has already declared his nationalist views.
I wonder what tomorrow's textbooks will tell the next generations about our time? In this sick medieval revival, even the president of the United States and the pope want to replace science and reason by an ultraconservative caricature of religion.

* let's say I elaborated a bit on "declared his nationalist views"

** see "Red blogule to Shinzo Abe - another revisionist leader" (20060926), or the unedited blog spill in French preceding my letter to the IHT : "Blogule rouge a Shinzo Abe - l'Empire contre attaque" (20061216)

*** see iht.com/articles/2006/12/19/news/edlet.php (20061220)

Red blogule to "Intelligent Design" - Fundamentals and fundamentalism - Creationism and cretinism

"Pro-Life", "Intelligent Design"... these guys do have a knack for positive wording (don't even think about positive thinking). I gather they call torture in Abu Ghraib "Truth Quest" and the negation of all independant safeguards or watchdogs (the UN, the Geneva Convention, the International Criminal Tribunal...) something like "Active Freedom".
Bush's position on evolution resembles that of Revisionists on gas chambers : since there are alternative theories, students should be taught both angles*. This image may strike you as indecent and it is, but it clearly exposes the loopholes in the argumentation.
I'm not making any sick parallel between the existence of gas chambers and the existence of God, nor between proven facts and beliefs : I'm comparing people who knowingly manipulate opinions through biased rethorics.
I'm not even defending the theory of evolution, which is the best to date but won't explain everything. I just think the fundamentals of human society should be protected from religious fundamentalism.
Creationism** puts faith at the same level as science and that is the very negation of science. You can believe in ID if you want but you cannot call this science (and of course you have no right to believe in the non-existence of gas chambers).
Just the same, you cannot call "democracy" any approach of politics based on nor even mixed with religious beliefs. That is one of the reasons why, once again, Bush thinks and acts as an enemy to democracy, justice or science.

* or as the Washington Post relates it : "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about". You want to "teach" about Creation, Dubya ? If there were a place for it in school, it would be the History of Religions (with a "S" so that, this time, all angles could be presented). And you want "debate" now ? That's what I call "evolution" : you've been avoiding the debate on every other issue and the one you picked doesn't rely on any facts. Can you believe it ? No one can contest your belief !
** I realize that up to now my blogules on this issue have been spilled in French (see "National Geographic - Points de vue et images du monde" or "Creationism & Cretinism"). And I guess "creationism" should be rebranded into something more suitable : I suggest a generic term like "Religion-Based Beliefs" for all the likes of Creationism.