Forums | MacLife

radarman wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/BAQT129NMG.DTL&tsp=1

(08-12) 17:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero's rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."

Despite being a Christian (perhaps because of it), I agree with this. I don't think other Universities should have to accept courses based purely on religious material - the Bible included. Largely because I think a lot of these Bible-based "science" courses are both bad science and bad theology.

That's a theological decision and not yours to make. I question your "Christian" credentials.

I know other Christians who went to Christian school who were taught the ideas of evolution and then told why it was wrong.  The science classes are just fine too.  Chemistry and biology at the high school level should have nothing to do with religion.  I think this is a load of ish.

radarman wrote:

jerwin wrote:

radarman wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/BAQT129NMG.DTL&tsp=1


Despite being a Christian (perhaps because of it), I agree with this. I don't think other Universities should have to accept courses based purely on religious material - the Bible included. Largely because I think a lot of these Bible-based "science" courses are both bad science and bad theology.

That's a theological decision and not yours to make. I question your "Christian" credentials.

Question all you want, that's your right. However, separation of church and state is an important issue for me - this article just happens to hit on one side. My faith in God is not in question. My faith in some of these fundamentalist schools is a bit less strong.

He was just yanking your salami.

Mustapha Mond wrote:

Can I get science credit for reading Asimov and Clarke?

And history credit for Poul Anderson!

Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory. Also encouraging the squelching of any findings that may contradict a literal interpretation of the bible goes against the principles of science and learning. If someone wants their child to never learn about evolution as a child or as an adult in college, send them to private religious schools. They exist. If it's too expensive, encourage your fellow parishioners to donate more money to make it affordable.

The religious nutjobs will get no satisfaction from the 9th Circuit though, they'd better prepare to go all the way to SCOTUS.

Count such classes as theology classes.  They are NOT science classes and should not be credited as such.

resedit wrote:

As long as the students are taught the appropriate theory that Cal expects students to have - they have no business dictating what else can be taught in the class. They are a publicly funded university and it is WAY outside their rights to declare a religious text as incorrect.

If they can demonstrate that students from a school that teaches the Bible is infallible have less knowledge on the subject matter than students from every public school they grant admission from, then they can reject that school.

Until then - they have no business doing what they are doing.

It is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

The universities aren't saying that the religion is wrong, they are saying that the way the science is taught is wrong - so there is no 1st admin violation.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

As long as the students are taught the appropriate theory that Cal expects students to have - they have no business dictating what else can be taught in the class. They are a publicly funded university and it is WAY outside their rights to declare a religious text as incorrect.

If they can demonstrate that students from a school that teaches the Bible is infallible have less knowledge on the subject matter than students from every public school they grant admission from, then they can reject that school.

Until then - they have no business doing what they are doing.

It is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

The universities aren't saying that the religion is wrong, they are saying that the way the science is taught is wrong - so there is no 1st admin violation.

Mr resedit time and again shows he has no clue what the 1st Amendment means.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

As long as the students are taught the appropriate theory that Cal expects students to have - they have no business dictating what else can be taught in the class. They are a publicly funded university and it is WAY outside their rights to declare a religious text as incorrect.

If they can demonstrate that students from a school that teaches the Bible is infallible have less knowledge on the subject matter than students from every public school they grant admission from, then they can reject that school.

Until then - they have no business doing what they are doing.

It is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

The universities aren't saying that the religion is wrong, they are saying that the way the science is taught is wrong - so there is no 1st admin violation.

If they can demonstrate that the students from these schools are less prepared for UC curriculum as a result - they have a point.
However, UC admits students from public schools that have extremely smurfy science programs all the time. They have to as a California Public University.

They can not say "We accept these students even though their education was inferior to these other students we reject because their science class mentioned the G word"

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

KHannon wrote:

Count such classes as theology classes.  They are NOT science classes and should not be credited as such.

If they teach the same scientific concepts, then they are science classes - even if they voice disagreement with the theories they teach.

Except the courts chose to use the word "omitted."

Can the UC system demonstrate that these students are any less prepared for a UC education?

I've not even seen them attempt to demonstrate to do so. And I know why they don't attempt to do so - because if they did, they would show that students from these schools are MORE likely to graduate than students from public high schools.

This is a blatant attempt to use tax payer money to discriminate against a religion.

Res, no one is saying these students can't go to UC.  No one is saying that they should be barred from attending.  No one is saying that their applications are being smurf-canned because they went to a religious school.

What they are saying is that the credits are not transferable.  Look at the first sentence in the article:

A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Read and understand.  Please.

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

KHannon wrote:

Count such classes as theology classes.  They are NOT science classes and should not be credited as such.

If they teach the same scientific concepts, then they are science classes - even if they voice disagreement with the theories they teach.

Its not science if you teach all the mechanisms by which something occurs, but when the why comes up, you say "god did it".

Could you clarify that remark?