Libi : en réponse à ton "prouve-le". Petite remarque préliminaire : je n'étais pas assertif ni aggressif dans ma réponse à ton post initial, je trouve le ton que tu adoptes (impératif) quelque peu déplacé, d'autant que tu continues toi-même à affirmer des choses sans donner de références. Serais-je donc seul soumis à la nécessité d'étayer mon propos ? Mais puique tu y tiens :

Je te renvoies à la décision de la Cour Suprême des Etats-Unis en date du 19 juin 1987, 482 U.S. 578, Edwards v. Aguillard. Et je cite : "Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.
(...)
2. The District Court did not err in granting summary judgment upon a finding that appellants had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Appellants relied on the "uncontroverted" affidavits of scientists, theologians, and an education administrator defining creation science as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form" and alleging that such a viewpoint constitutes a true scientific theory. The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that the postenactment testimony of these experts concerning the possible technical meanings of the Act's terms would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the state legislature when it passed the Act. None of the persons making the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law. Pp. 594-596.

765 F.2d 1251, affirmed."

C.Q.F.D.

et t'inquietes pas, Saul, moi aussi, j'etait pas agressive...j'aime bien simplement de dire..'prouve-le'. Have a nice day.

Saul
186.... Les boules, c'est beaucoup....elle nous bats tous non?