I hang out at...

Thursday, August 14, 2008

US judge says University can ignore Christian course credits

I don't even know what to say.

US judge says University can ignore Christian course credits

According to the Reg:
A federal judge has told the University of California that when considering applicants, it has the constitutional right to ignore high school course work grounded in the notion that the Bible is infallible.


In a 20-page ruling (pdf) Judge Otero, of the Central District of California, says that UC could reject credits as long as it wasn't acting out of "animus" and it had "a rational basis" for those rejections. And he's quite sure the University met both criteria.
That's nice. He's "quite sure". How many rulings are based on this level of jurisprudence?
One high school course was rejected because its primary text, the Bob Jones University-published United States History for Christian Schools, "failed to adequately teach critical thinking and modern historical analytic methods."
That's also nice. Do they examine all classes from all high school transcripts that closely?

Also, I may have had a very mediocre history teacher in college, but High School U.S. History did not teach me anything about "critical thinking and modern historical analytic methods."
The plaintiffs have already appealed. "It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," said their attorney, Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom. ®
Let's hope they find some sanity up the court food chain. Of course, this is federal court in California. Next stop 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

No sanity there. Just as well whistle by that stop and go to the final stop with the Supremes.

Read the entire article.

1 comment:

lavelle55 said...

With this Christmas season upon us I wanted to chime in with a few thoughts that many may not have thought of.
Every year we are subjected to the endless attacks on the Judao-Christian religion by groups who would rather not have anyone “preach” to them the virtues of Christianity. This preaching could take the mere form of physically putting a cross on a church steeple to putting up a nativity scene on public property to displaying the Ten Commandments on courthouse steps. The freedom from religion zealots are very eager to eliminate any vestige of any religion as long as it is Christian in nature. They use the courts to bully their prey into giving up their rights to religious freedom by asking for exorbitant punitive damages should they win the court case. The victim gives up and establishes a legal precedent.

Yet somehow no one has answered the question - where are the words “separation of church and state”? No one has bothered to even mention this little fact in the national media - yet they are eager to pronounce this myth of separation far and wide as fact. Since these same zealots are so quick to say there is no god and their alliance with the supreme court they completely forget the courts both supreme and appeals have already classified their own belief - atheism - as a religion.
In the case of atheism it does not need a god - it does not need a building such as a church or synagogue. It does, however, need a belief, a faith in something, and that is in this case no god and the supreme-ness of human kind.

In a August of 2005 court case the seventh circuit court of appeals said a prison inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

In 1961 case of Torcaso v Watkins the supreme court described “secular humanism” as a religion. And that religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
This being the case - if the anti-god zealots who are trying to rid society of the christian religion and want to put in place their own religion of atheism - aren’t they guilty of religious discrimination and prejudice.

In two other cases Peloza v. Capistrano School District and Smith v. Board of School Com’rs of Mobile County held that atheism IS a religion for establishment clause purposes.
In other words: if christians try to propagate their views it is a establishment clause violation, but not if an atheist tries to do the same. In the 1950's, Atheists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organization when atheists want the benefits from being a religion. Yet, when atheists are challenged for propagating their religion in public schools, it is not a religion.