Forums | MacLife

user wrote:

Metacell wrote:

user wrote:

The thing is that Scientology is new enough for you to know that it's a fact that Hubbard said that. The Committee that put together the bible may well have made a similar statement, but it's lost in the mists of time.

Doubtful, almost all of the apostles died martyrs deaths far from home.  Even if there is little purely anthropological evidence for the life of Chist alone, there are multiple historic records from different countries of the deeds of his followers.  I'm not trying to say this proves the Bible is right or even close to accurate, but it does suggest that the founders were genuine in their belief and devotion.

I've seen that argument before.

Like I said "lost in the mists of time". I've heard that even the evidence of the apostles' lives and martyrdom is slim to non-existent.

Thats possible too, but the Reverend Doctor Gene Scott told me and I take his word as Gospel.

It's on the press as we speak. How many copies should I put you down for?

I hadn't realized that this was the second ruling by this judge in this case, the first confirming the university's ability to set standards:

In March, Judge Otero issued his first ruling in which he upheld the constitutionality of the University’s high school course review process. The Court ruled that UC can exercise discretion in setting academic standards, such as the sufficiency of high school preparatory courses, and has a right to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for admission. It also found that the “a-g” course approval guidelines did not violate the freedom of speech and religion of Christian high schools.

bratboy wrote:

I hadn't realized that this was the second ruling by this judge in this case, the first confirming the university's ability to set standards:

In March, Judge Otero issued his first ruling in which he upheld the constitutionality of the University’s high school course review process. The Court ruled that UC can exercise discretion in setting academic standards, such as the sufficiency of high school preparatory courses, and has a right to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for admission. It also found that the “a-g” course approval guidelines did not violate the freedom of speech and religion of Christian high schools.

Ahem

bratboy wrote:

All five students named in the case have since graduated from the school and two are enrolled at UC Riverside, where they were admitted based on their grades in other, UC-approved courses at Calvary Christian, Tyler said. But he said the case was important to pursue for current and future students nationwide.

In documents presented in the case, UC representatives pointed out that the university has certified more than 50 other courses at Calvary Christian as meeting UC's admission standards. UC said that it accepts courses from hundreds of schools affiliated with various faiths and that courses from Christian schools are approved at the same rate as those submitted by others.

Link.

Sure - it approves courses from christian schools that don't teach God in the science class.
Kind of like the military hires gays who don't ask and don't tell.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Sure - it approves courses from christian schools that don't teach God in the science class.
Kind of like the military hires gays who don't ask and don't tell.

You do realize that most of the courses that were at issue in this case were not science classes, don't you?

Doesn't matter.
Science is the one I am looking at.

In fact, there are other christian schools on the record that rejected this science curriculum for exactly the same reasons as the University.

As is their right.

What exactly is the Universities criteria for a lab science course and how exactly did this course fail those criteria?

Discrimination does not have to be universally applied to be discrimination.
I could hire some people despite them being gay but refuse to hire others because they are gay. It's still discrimination, no?

Last edited by resedit (2008-08-21 5:25 pm)

bratboy wrote:

If you or the plaintiffs could demonstrate that the university has rejected any science course that talks about creationism, you might have something.  That isn't true, however, and the plaintiffs were completely unable to demonstrate that the class was rejected out of animus towards religion.

But but but. Dont bring logic and reason into this! then what will the "oh teh noes! persecution++" Christians have to whinge about?

resedit wrote:

What exactly is the Universities criteria for a lab science course and how exactly did this course fail those criteria?

You are free to read through the court's decision and through whatever arguments were submitted to the court.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but it's the truth:  The university is allowed to set the standards by which high school curriculum is accepted or rejected.  The court will not second-guess the judgment of the university.

It was up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that these requirements were improper.  They failed to do so.  Can YOU demonstrate that their requirements were improper? 

It was not the university's job to prove to the court (or to you) that they were not discriminating, save demonstrating a 'rational basis' for their position.  If you care to argue otherwise, fine--but use facts to do so. 

You have said the court was wrong--well, why was it wrong?  What specific arguments do you have against the court's decision?  I quite honestly do not believe that you're interested in the facts, here.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

What exactly is the Universities criteria for a lab science course and how exactly did this course fail those criteria?

You are free to read through the court's decision and through whatever arguments were submitted to the court.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but it's the truth:  The university is allowed to set the standards by which high school curriculum is accepted or rejected.

Where is this standard published?

Here you go, all you could ever want to know about their requirements.

bratboy wrote:

Here you go, all you could ever want to know about their requirements.

I still did not find a specification for what a science class is to cover in order to meet the requirement.
This is the most I found:

Two years of laboratory science providing fundamental knowledge in at least two of these three foundational subjects: biology, chemistry and physics. Advanced laboratory science classes that have biology, chemistry or physics as prerequisites and offer substantial additional material may be used to fulfill this requirement, as may the final two years of an approved three-year integrated science program that provides rigorous coverage of at least two of the three foundational subjects.

Do they define "fundamental knowledge" anywhere?
I couldn't find it.

bratboy wrote:

Well Res, perhaps the precise requirements are not available for your review (though as I've insisted repeatedly, you could really gain a better grasp of the actual issues at play here if you just read the frickin' court decision). 

What difference would it make?

A big difference.
The school would simply need a supplemental text that covers the topics UC feels are missing from their chosen text.
In fact, the publisher may even provide one until it publishes an updated version with a few extra chapters.

Kind of like how some auto makers made California only carburetors etc. to meet the published CA smog regulations.

Last edited by resedit (2008-08-25 12:58 am)

resedit wrote:

A big difference.

What difference would it make to you.  What, do you think that the university simply refuses to inform plaintiffs what their courses are missing?  Is that alleged anywhere, in the plaintiffs' filings or otherwise?

The school would simply need a supplemental text that covers the topics UC feels are missing from their chosen text.
In fact, the publisher may even provide one until it publishes an updated version with a few extra chapters.

Again, there's nothing here to suggest that they were having difficulty bringing their courses into compliance.  They weren't interested in being in compliance.  One of the courses simply needed to be re-categorized as an upper-level course in order for it to be credited. 

The details are all there, available for you to read at any point.  One would think that you'd find it necessary to see what the court had to say before condemning the ruling.  Even now, you're bringing up completely irrelevant "issues" ("they could issue a supplement!") that were not at play in this case.