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.

Which is worse? Making up Bible verses or pulling them out of context?

I've discussed previously Nancy Pelosi's made up scripture reference. And that's a pretty bad thing.

But now I think we've got something worse in the public square. Rev. Wright, Obama's former pastor, was at the National Press club taking questions.

Here's the bit that I'm referring to:

“Question: Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the light. Is Islam the way to salvation?”

Wright: Jesus also said “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold.”

After Nancy's episode, I doubted this was in the Bible. But, sure enough, that's what John 10:16a says.

However, the full verse is

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

John 10:16 (NIV)

So, does that mean that Jesus said Muslims are also on their way to salvation? Look at the rest of the verse: "They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."

The Muslims, as least the radical Islamists, are interested in there being only one flock and one shepherd. But they are not listening to Jesus' voice nor are they interested in joining His flock.

So, no, Rev. Wright. That part of a verse pulled out of context does not mean that Islam is the way or even a way to salvation.

And thanks to Michelle Malkin for liveblogging the event.