Please Help Us Grow!

[Carol from Long ...]

Score one for reason.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

Judge says UC can deny religious course credit
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 13, 2008

(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."

The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.

UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.

For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.

He also said the Christian schools presented no evidence that the university's decisions were motivated by hostility to religion.

UC attorney Christopher Patti said Tuesday that the judge assessed the review process accurately.

"We evaluate the courses to see whether they prepare these kids to come to college at UC," he said. "There was no evidence that these students were in fact denied the ability to come to the university."

But Monk, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said Otero had used the wrong legal standard and had given the university too much deference.

"Science courses from a religious perspective are not approved," she said. "If it comes from certain publishers or from a religious perspective, UC simply denies them."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../BAQT129NMG.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.

[Joe McQuade]

Score one for reason.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

Judge says UC can deny religious course credit
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 13, 2008

(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."

The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.

UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.

For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.

He also said the Christian schools presented no evidence that the university's decisions were motivated by hostility to religion.

UC attorney Christopher Patti said Tuesday that the judge assessed the review process accurately.

"We evaluate the courses to see whether they prepare these kids to come to college at UC," he said. "There was no evidence that these students were in fact denied the ability to come to the university."

But Monk, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said Otero had used the wrong legal standard and had given the university too much deference.

"Science courses from a religious perspective are not approved," she said. "If it comes from certain publishers or from a religious perspective, UC simply denies them."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c.../BAQT129NMG.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
© 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.

Bible thumpers will no doubt howl. Wonder what they'd say if we gave Wahabbi clerics credit for their madrasssah "studies?"

[Carol from Long ...]

Bible thumpers will no doubt howl. Wonder what they'd say if we gave Wahhabi clerics credit for their madrasssah "studies?"

It was the "bible thumpers" who were howling, and they would "howl" even louder against "Islamic based" history and science.

Sometimes, religion IS the reason behind some historical events. I grew up in and around Trenton, NJ, home of the first Revolutionary War battle won by Washington and his troops. To this day they reenact Washington Crossing the Delaware on Christmas Morning. One on the main reasons that we won was due to the fact that the Hessians, being the good German Christians that they were and are, were "standing down" and celebrating Christmas. Some textbooks omit that important fact.


My two favorite quotes from the article above were:

"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."

"What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a 'religious exemption from regular admissions standards.'"

This post has been edited by Carol from Long Valley NJ: Aug 14 2008, 08:40 AM

[Michael Schrage]

One thing I like about religionists is their need to be more right about their Deity of choice than others. These kinds of feelings and thoughts are ego based.

Actual Universality isn’t quite yet in place…… Until it is, the games of denial, avoidance, difference and superiority will continue to be played.

Our scientific endeavors right Now offer more understandings about how everything is connected than our religions by far. Scientists are not as petty as most that hold to various religious understandings.

As I have mentioned to Joe quite sometime ago, given our religious state of affairs I could almost be an atheist. What reasonable person would take as true so much religious nonsense?

But this religious nonsense is, like it or not, contributing to the overall experience of life on this planet. It certainly has and still does keep people involved and active.

Some people wonder why aliens have not yet contacted us. If you were an aware alien would you? They most likely see a very primitive level of consciousness on this planet. If they revealed themselves they know all hell would happen and they don’t want to be responsible for that.

[J. Patterson]

Score one for reason.

Score one for bigotry. While I do not expect the 9th Circuit to get this right, the university's policy is clearly unconstitutional. Public policies which affect a protected class (religious belief being one such class) come under the legal standard of strict scrutiny which means the Court will look at the effect of the policy, not just the intent. If the effect of the policy results in otherwise qualified applicants being denied admission, the policy is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

College admission must be based on individual merit not a perceived class characteristic. For a university to base its admission policies on the notion that religious belief equates to a lack of critical thinking skills (at the risk of sounding immodest I'll state that I'll put mine up against anyone) is not only outrageous, it's bigotry no different than dinging a black student because everyone knows blacks lack the work ethic required to succeed at a university.

This post has been edited by J. Patterson: Aug 14 2008, 09:50 AM

[Carol from Long ...]

Score one for bigotry.

Score one for lack of reading comprehension.

Good morning Mr. Patteron, based upon your remarks, I have to conclude that you didn't really read and comprehend the entire article. Individual students could bypass the 'rejected' credits by taking a test and proving that they know the material. If they passed, then they were in.

"What the plaintiffs seek is a 'religious exemption from regular admissions standards.'"

According to our constitution, and according to the decision of the court, and according to the University ... you have every right to believe in a religion, you have every right to practice that religion, but you have no right to expect our public schools to accept students who haven't had real science classes if that is part of the University's acceptance criteria. Teach religion at home all that you want to, but leave science to the schools -- we need our students to learn all that they can of real science so that we can compete in the global economy.

Just my two cents worth.

[CH]

Bible thumpers will no doubt howl. Wonder what they'd say if we gave Wahabbi clerics credit for their madrasssah "studies?"

If Wababbi clerics were denied credit for their madrassah studies, then the policy would be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and thus like it or not, it would be arguably fair. I see the logic behind the denial of credit, however, where does it stop? I'll tell you where - any religion that could be described as inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian mainstream.

But let's leave religion out of this for a second - should an immigrant from Mexico be denied general education credit if their course work doesn't believe manifest destiny was an appropriate policy for this country during the 19th century?


This post has been edited by CH: Aug 14 2008, 04:47 PM

[J. Patterson]

Score one for lack of reading comprehension.

Good morning Mr. Patteron, based upon your remarks, I have to conclude that you didn't really read and comprehend the entire article. Individual students could bypass the 'rejected' credits by taking a test and proving that they know the material. If they passed, then they were in.

"What the plaintiffs seek is a 'religious exemption from regular admissions standards.'"

According to our constitution, and according to the decision of the court, and according to the University ... you have every right to believe in a religion, you have every right to practice that religion, but you have no right to expect our public schools to accept students who haven't had real science classes if that is part of the University's acceptance criteria. Teach religion at home all that you want to, but leave science to the schools -- we need our students to learn all that they can of real science so that we can compete in the global economy.

Just my two cents worth.

Hi Carol,

The article states "... students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test". If "well" means equally well as others who took the non-approved courses, then you are right, there isn't an issue. But if that is the case, why review the HS classes at all? The proof is in the pudding right?

All it would take to get this overturned is one student who was denied entrance and whose test scores were equal to or better than a student who had been properly indoctrinated by the state public schools system.

[J. Patterson]

If Wababbi clerics were denied credit for their madrassah studies, then the policy would be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and thus like it or not, it would be arguably fair. I see the logic behind the denial of credit, however, where does it stop? I'll tell you where - any religion that could be described as inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian mainstream.

But let's leave religion out of this for a second - should an immigrant from Mexico be denied general education credit if their course work doesn't believe manifest destiny was an appropriate policy for this country during the 19th century?

Or how about a black student denied entrance because the UC has decided that urban schools aren't up to snuff?

[Carol from Long ...]

All it would take to get this overturned is one student who was denied entrance and whose test scores were equal to or better than a student who had been properly indoctrinated by the state public schools system.

As a victim of 13 years of Catholic school, I think that I can safely say that you applied "indoctrination" to the wrong school system. My high school science classes taught science, the religion classes were down the hall taught by other teachers.

My personal history aside, if the "indoctrinated" religious high school graduate was truly determined to enter the University Of California's system, then they should recognize the admission requirements and meet them. Otherwise, there are plenty of religious institutions of higher learning -- Oral Roberts and Bob Jones are two that come to mind.

Universities have many reasons to accept or reject students, grades aren't everything. So I doubt if the ruling will be overturned, but if it is, it will be a sad day for our educational system.

This post has been edited by Carol from Long Valley NJ: Aug 14 2008, 05:27 PM

[Joe McQuade]

Score one for bigotry. While I do not expect the 9th Circuit to get this right, the university's policy is clearly unconstitutional. Public policies which affect a protected class (religious belief being one such class) come under the legal standard of strict scrutiny which means the Court will look at the effect of the policy, not just the intent. If the effect of the policy results in otherwise qualified applicants being denied admission, the policy is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

College admission must be based on individual merit not a perceived class characteristic. For a university to base its admission policies on the notion that religious belief equates to a lack of critical thinking skills (at the risk of sounding immodest I'll state that I'll put mine up against anyone) is not only outrageous, it's bigotry no different than dinging a black student because everyone knows blacks lack the work ethic required to succeed at a university.

Score one for lack of reading comprehension.

Good morning Mr. Patteron, based upon your remarks, I have to conclude that you didn't really read and comprehend the entire article. Individual students could bypass the 'rejected' credits by taking a test and proving that they know the material. If they passed, then they were in.

"What the plaintiffs seek is a 'religious exemption from regular admissions standards.'"

According to our constitution, and according to the decision of the court, and according to the University ... you have every right to believe in a religion, you have every right to practice that religion, but you have no right to expect our public schools to accept students who haven't had real science classes if that is part of the University's acceptance criteria. Teach religion at home all that you want to, but leave science to the schools -- we need our students to learn all that they can of real science so that we can compete in the global economy.

Just my two cents worth.

If Wababbi clerics were denied credit for their madrassah studies, then the policy would be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and thus like it or not, it would be arguably fair. I see the logic behind the denial of credit, however, where does it stop? I'll tell you where - any religion that could be described as inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian mainstream.

But let's leave religion out of this for a second - should an immigrant from Mexico be denied general education credit if their course work doesn't believe manifest destiny was an appropriate policy for this country during the 19th century?

Hi Carol,

The article states "... students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test". If "well" means equally well as others who took the non-approved courses, then you are right, there isn't an issue. But if that is the case, why review the HS classes at all? The proof is in the pudding right?

All it would take to get this overturned is one student who was denied entrance and whose test scores were equal to or better than a student who had been properly indoctrinated by the state public schools system.

Or how about a black student denied entrance because the UC has decided that urban schools aren't up to snuff?

As a victim of 13 years of Catholic school, I think that I can safely say that you applied "indoctrination" to the wrong school system. My high school science classes taught science, the religion classes were down the hall taught by other teachers.

My personal history aside, if the "indoctrinated" religious high school graduate was truly determined to enter the University Of California's system, then they should recognize the admission requirements and meet them. Otherwise, there are plenty of religious institutions of higher learning -- Oral Roberts and Bob Jones are two that come to mind.

Universities have many reasons to accept or reject students, grades aren't everything. So I doubt if the ruling will be overturned, but if it is, it will be a sad day for our educational system.

Thanks to Carol for dispensing with the straw men and red herrings. Civil Discourse at its best.

[Guest_Larry in Homeland CA_*]

Or how about a black student denied entrance because the UC has decided that urban schools aren't up to snuff?

Hello CH, JP,

If anyone can show me where in the SAT exams it is necessary to agree with the concept of manifest destiny, or any relationship between UC acceptance and an African American's educational public school background regardless of location, then I will be happy to discuss it with either of you.

I am betting that neither of you can point to a single documented case of either in any SAT exam.

[J. Patterson]

Hello CH, JP,

If anyone can show me where in the SAT exams it is necessary to agree with the concept of manifest destiny, or any relationship between UC acceptance and an African American's educational public school background regardless of location, then I will be happy to discuss it with either of you.

I am betting that neither of you can point to a single documented case of either in any SAT exam.

As I read the article, it is not SAT tests that are being used but rather some UC devised placement test given only to those students whose HS curriculum is deemed deficient by the UC review process. I won't hold my breath waiting for the ACLU to jump in with their usual blather about how such tests are inherently unfair and culturally biased.

[Carol from Long ...]

Once again, Mr. Patterson, you are asking for a religious exemption from regular admissions standards, and I find that extremely offensive to myself and every one else who actually studied hard and met the admissions requirements.

My Catholic High School was highly accredited. The nuns, priests, brothers and laypersons who ran the school and oversaw the curriculum knew what the requirements for college admissions were and made darn sure that their course offerings met them. They did not (and still do not) expect Universities to change their admission procedures for them. That is both arrogant and audacious.

Science and scientific thinking and known scientific principles are taught in science classes.

Religion is best taught at home, but in the case of parochial schools, can be taught successfully both by example and in separate Religion classes.

Teaching religious mythology in science classes benefits NO ONE, and this wilful ignorance on the part of evangelicals is making America a laughing stock around the world.

So no, I do not expect the ACLU to contribute to the dumbing down of America by insisting that students, who are not qualified for college due to the ignorance of their High School's curriculum be admitted to College because of their Faith. It makes a mockery of all the efforts by everyone else who played by the rules.

Just my two cents worth.

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Nov 7 2009, 10:20 AM

[J. Patterson]

Once again, Mr. Patterson, you are asking for a religious exemption from regular admissions standards, and I find that extremely offensive to myself and every one else who actually studied hard and met the admissions requirements.

My Catholic High School was highly accredited. The nuns, priests, brothers and laypersons who ran the school and oversaw the curriculum knew what the requirements for college admissions were and made darn sure that their course offerings met them. They did not (and still do not) expect Universities to change their admission procedures for them. That is both arrogant and audacious.

Science and scientific thinking and known scientific principles are taught in science classes.

Religion is best taught at home, but in the case of parochial schools, can be taught successfully both by example and in separate Religion classes.

Teaching religious mythology in science classes benefits NO ONE, and this wilful ignorance on the part of evangelicals is making America a laughing stock around the world.

So no, I do not expect the ACLU to contribute to the dumbing down of America by insisting that students, who are not qualified for college due to the ignorance of their High School's curriculum be admitted to College because of their Faith. It makes a mockery of all the efforts by everyone else who played by the rules.

Just my two cents worth.

You post gave me a good chuckle. Christian schools consistently wipe the floor with the public schools in the standardized academic test scores. In my county, where the scores were just released, the Christian Academy received the highest scores in all three categories (reading, language and math) for the 18th straight year, followed by the Catholic parochial school who beat the public schools despite the large numbers of migrant children enrolled therein.

Thanks for the post. It is always nice to start the day off with a laugh!

[Guest_Larry in Homeland CA_*]

You post gave me a good chuckle. Christian schools consistently wipe the floor with the public schools in the standardized academic test scores. In my county, where the scores were just released, the Christian Academy received the highest scores in all three categories (reading, language and math) for the 18th straight year, followed by the Catholic parochial school who beat the public schools despite the large numbers of migrant children enrolled therein.

Thanks for the post. It is always nice to start the day off with a laugh!

How did those schools fare in science? I couldn't help but notice you did not mention that category. If those religious schools do so well they should have no problems getting into UC right? The university system has every right to their requirements for admission to their universities no matter how hard you want to fight that battle.

The religious schools have every right to teach what they want to, but if their students want to make it into the UC system, they had better insist their schools teach a curriculum the universities demand in addition to what the schools want to teach.

If you find that funny, feel free to laugh all you want to.

This post has been edited by Larry in Homeland CA: Aug 26 2008, 01:31 PM

[CH]

Thanks to Carol for dispensing with the straw men and red herrings. Civil Discourse at its best.

Straw men and red herrings? Come on Joe - these examples expose the weakness of UC's position. Read my post carefully and take another stab at responding - I agree with UC's logic but do not believe such a policy can be administered in a non-discriminatory manner, therefore it should not be administered at all because there's no end to what might be the next litmus test. If UC wishes to implement such a policy, they should at least come up with an objective means to test for the lack of reasoning skills (kind of like an SAT is designed to do).

Unless of course you believe the UC's position should be administered on a discriminatory basis because it's a self-evident truth, right?

But on to some hopefully more secular points:

1) What UC is saying by applying such a test is that the prospective student is beyond hope. Shouldn't UC be ready and fully capable to take up the challenge to set such feeble minded students straight?

2) One of the best points raised in a couple other posts is that the student who applies to UC should know what they are getting into and be prepared to tell them what they want to hear (this advice would work if one wishes to study at a madrassah too). For example, when a conservative student has a liberal professor (an all too frequent situation), the best advice one can give to the student is to tell the professor what they want to hear in terms of class participation and written assignments. From my experience personally (and through two children in college) it is rare that the professor is willing to tolerate such opinions. Taking on the professor usually only leads to anguish and disappointment for the student.

3) To be fair, there are a few liberal professors that in my experience use the disagreement or dissenting opinion as an opportunity to educate. They don't duck the disagreement by dismissing commentary as straw men or red herrings. Shouldn't UC rise to this level?

This post has been edited by CH: Aug 18 2008, 09:02 PM

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Nov 7 2009, 10:19 AM

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Nov 7 2009, 10:19 AM

[Joe McQuade]

I did not intend these as rhetorical questions.

[original post re-worded for clarity]

Alas, CO, one searches in vain for intellectual coherence on the Christian right.

[Carol from Long ...]

I read this article over the weekend, I highly recommend it, it's a little long but well worth reading. It illustrates the frustrations of a science teacher trying to overcome small minds. It appears as if he's succeeding and let's hope that he continues to. Americas future depends on our students learning science.


A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash
By AMY HARMON
David Campbell is bringing Florida's mandate to teach evolution to many students raised to take the biblical creation story as fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/educatio...l?th&emc=th

[CH]

CH,

Basic knowledge of the principles, processes, and prevailing theories of science or mathematics are not merely opinions, akin to the political preferences of a stubbornly liberal or conservative professor.
(And I don't think your example of manifest destiny is applicable in this context. I don't know of any history curriculum proposing that the theory of manifest destiny was correct - or "appropriate" - or is necessary to accept as "appropriate" in order to understand other concepts within the subject. Rather, it is important for history students to learn that the theory existed and was used to justify certain actions.)

Until recently, I knew of no public institution of higher learning using religious beliefs as a reason to deny admittance. Private religious colleges might deny admittance based upon a lack of belief but that's a public/private debate. And even in the private realm, there are limits upon what discrimination is permissible.

From an objective point of view, I agree that one cannot compare a political position to a religious belief. However this is decision is beng made subjectively. Rather than get into a theological debate, a political position is a reasonable secular proxy. At least amongst the most hard core in either party (the wing nuts), political beliefs are as unassailable as some core religious values.

A student that only accepts manifest destiny as something that was used to justify historical actions will likely never grasp the concept of imperialism (historical or current). I wouldn't want such a person teaching history, for example, and could justify denying entry into a teaching college. Of course I'd like to believe a good school could straighten out that student who might have other skills that would make the person a good teacher.

By your logic, the student in question, by merely acknowledging that others take a scientific approach, should gain admittance. That tells us nothing about the student's reasoning skills.

I have no objection to denying entry to a marginal student based upon a lack of reasoning skills. My objection is using the religious beliefs of the student as the basis for 'determining' a lack of reasoning skills. Develop an objective test - one will probably find that objective questions would weed out the same marginal student but that would be done on a non-discriminatory basis.

UC's status as a public and secular institution doesn't give it the right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. Discrimination isn't just wrong... it's also lazy. UC should be above that.

This post has been edited by CH: Aug 25 2008, 06:52 PM

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Nov 7 2009, 10:19 AM

[CH]

And there STILL isn't one!

You can believe what you want to believe and get admitted to UC.

The requirement applicants are being forced to meet is to have successgully completed a high-school science curriculum - a curriculum which prepares the student adequately for the education UC provides. (Or, you can prove through this test that you are prepared in some other way.)

I disagree - From the original article:

(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.

UC is denying credit based upon the books used for the course and not what the student can demonstrate - where is the test? That's been my point - devise a test (taken by the student) that shows the student is incapable of critical thinking.

UC's policy declares students from Christian Schools with what even I would agree are at best, incomplete text books, beyond hope and therefore unworthy of admittance. As suggested in this thread before, substitute ' improverished minority applicants attending inferior, underfunded & dangerous public schools in the inner city' for 'applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolutionfrom and the policy is obviously wrong.' The odds against success are long for either group at UC but no one should be beyond hope because of where they come from.

Maybe UC should start treating applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution as educationally deprived and give them remedial courses in critical thinking.

By the way, the Amish can drive as slow as they wish provided they have a slow moving vehicle symbol on their vehicle. Try hitting one and see how well the state has accommodated them.

[Carol from Long ...]

I disagree - From the original article:

(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.

UC is denying credit based upon the books used for the course and not what the student can demonstrate - where is the test? That's been my point - devise a test (taken by the student) that shows the student is incapable of critical thinking.

UC's policy declares students from Christian Schools with what even I would agree are at best, incomplete text books, beyond hope and therefore unworthy of admittance. As suggested in this thread before, substitute ' improverished minority applicants attending inferior, underfunded & dangerous public schools in the inner city' for 'applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolutionfrom and the policy is obviously wrong.' The odds against success are long for either group at UC but no one should be beyond hope because of where they come from.

Maybe UC should start treating applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution as educationally deprived and give them remedial courses in critical thinking.

By the way, the Amish can drive as slow as they wish provided they have a slow moving vehicle symbol on their vehicle. Try hitting one and see how well the state has accommodated them.

Or, maybe these expensive private high schools should teach science in science classes, use approved 'complete' text books and adequately prepare their students to attend the UC. Otherwise, they should just direct their students to universities that have their same values, i.e. private religious sponsored universities.

Teaching students using "incomplete" text books is doing them a disservice, and these 'faith based' schools should almost be sued for educational malpractice. They have the money to do it correctly, unlike the inner cities that never seem to have enough supplies. If my Roman Catholic high school could teach evolution, then there is no excuse for other schools to deny it.

It is one thing to offer supportive classes to inner city students who can handle college, but their schools have funding issues, it is another thing to offer supportive classes to students of schools who willfully decide not to teach their students the science that they need to get into college.

There is a difference.

But that is just my two cents worth

[CuriousOne]

.

This post has been edited by CuriousOne: Nov 7 2009, 10:19 AM

[SoCal]

Crazy About God – On the religious continuum between Taliban-era Afghanistan and the godless Soviet Union, America sits much closer to the former than the latter. Is this something to be pleased or worried about?

I think that you are incorrect. Let's look at the Taliban-era Afghanistan. Some of the hallmarks of the Taliban's oppression of women and non-Muslims: (1) forced use of the burqa on all women and girls past the age of menarche; (2) destruction of 2000+ year-old Buddhist statue; (3) public executions of women who had violated Quranic Sharia rules.

I don't see anything close to this happening in American society. In America, religious people of all beliefs are forced to tolerate opposing viewpoints including widespread mockery and ridicule in the popular media. In America, religious fundamentalists lack both the will and the ability to destroy buildings and holy sites of other faiths. In America, women are free to wear anything that covers up their indecent parts.

I think that we are a far cry from where Afghanistan is and was. We are also very far from where the Soviet Union was in terms of religious oppression.

I'm not too worried about where we now stand in terms of the balance between the religious and the secular. People in the U.S.A. enjoy a level of religious freedom that is unheard of in most parts of the world.

I'm not concerned at all about this. I do not share your concerns.

[Michael Schrage]

Since our race first started to think about an unseen power that is beyond itself people have been constantly trying to contain that power. All religions in some way try to put whatever deity they belief in, in a box. This box contains dualistically based rules. What is right and what is wrong.

The Taliban are no different in this than most others. They know what's right and when others threaten this rightness in some way they can be severely punished. Christianity in various ways over the ages has been doing the same sorts of things. The brutality of the Inquisition being one good example. We tend to forget how many times humankind has tried to force one belief paradigm on others. How many of our wars (even the Iraq war) were said to be a statement that God is on our side.

This craziness about God or the God of our creation should be expected based on trying to make sense out of a concept that philosophically is beyond sense. Using and relying on our relatively based thinking, which is based on dualism, to consider something that, at least conceptually, is beyond thought, leaves most quite confused and often fearful in some way. Fearful people are more prone to using violence in response to their fears.

Our involvement in Iraq is a testament of our collective fears. Many Christian fundamentalists saw that war as the start of what is predicted in the Bible. They believe that the return of Jesus will be the end result of conflict in the Middle East. So while they may not like the blood and loss of life it is worth to them. Now who is crazy?

Like it or not, religions as they are currently experienced and were experienced in the past, contain various forms of fear. Fear based religions always contain some sort of violence and intolerance.

[Joe McQuade]

I think that you are incorrect. Let's look at the Taliban-era Afghanistan. Some of the hallmarks of the Taliban's oppression of women and non-Muslims: (1) forced use of the burqa on all women and girls past the age of menarche; (2) destruction of 2000+ year-old Buddhist statue; (3) public executions of women who had violated Quranic Sharia rules.

I don't see anything close to this happening in American society. In America, religious people of all beliefs are forced to tolerate opposing viewpoints including widespread mockery and ridicule in the popular media. In America, religious fundamentalists lack both the will and the ability to destroy buildings and holy sites of other faiths. In America, women are free to wear anything that covers up their indecent parts.

I think that we are a far cry from where Afghanistan is and was. We are also very far from where the Soviet Union was in terms of religious oppression.

I'm not too worried about where we now stand in terms of the balance between the religious and the secular. People in the U.S.A. enjoy a level of religious freedom that is unheard of in most parts of the world.

I'm not concerned at all about this. I do not share your concerns.

We agree that the U.S. is far removed from Taliban-like intolerance. But the point of the passage you cite is that we are nevertheless closer to that extreme than we are to that of the old USSR, in which atheism was state-enforced doctrine.

[Joe McQuade]

Here's a nice take from the NYT's new, young conservative columnist. What a step up he is from Bill Kristol, the ideological hack he replaced...


December 21, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Heaven and Nature
By ROSS DOUTHAT

It’s fitting that James Cameron’s “Avatar” arrived in theaters at Christmastime. Like the holiday season itself, the science fiction epic is a crass embodiment of capitalistic excess wrapped around a deeply felt religious message. It’s at once the blockbuster to end all blockbusters, and the Gospel According to James.

But not the Christian Gospel. Instead, “Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.

In Cameron’s sci-fi universe, this communion is embodied by the blue-skinned, enviably slender Na’Vi, an alien race whose idyllic existence on the planet Pandora is threatened by rapacious human invaders. The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

Hollywood keeps returning to these themes because millions of Americans respond favorably to them. From Deepak Chopra to Eckhart Tolle, the “religion and inspiration” section in your local bookstore is crowded with titles pushing a pantheistic message. A recent Pew Forum report on how Americans mix and match theology found that many self-professed Christians hold beliefs about the “spiritual energy” of trees and mountains that would fit right in among the indigo-tinted Na’Vi.

As usual, Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming. The American belief in the essential unity of all mankind, Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s, leads us to collapse distinctions at every level of creation. “Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator,” he suggested, democratic man “seeks to expand and simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.”

Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions — with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps “bring God closer to human experience,” while “depriving him of recognizable personal traits.” For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.

Indeed, it represents a form of religion that even atheists can support. Richard Dawkins has called pantheism “a sexed-up atheism.” (He means that as a compliment.) Sam Harris concluded his polemic “The End of Faith” by rhapsodizing about the mystical experiences available from immersion in “the roiling mystery of the world.” Citing Albert Einstein’s expression of religious awe at the “beauty and sublimity” of the universe, Dawkins allows, “In this sense I too am religious.”

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward — or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it — a deeply tragic one.

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

[Michael Schrage]

While the author seems to infer that, what could be called pantheistic spiritual understandings, are to some degree the current thing in Hollywood he does mention that many self professed Christians have similar views. Of course they normally wouldn't admit to various aspects of pantheism such as their are God's and Goddesses in such things as the wind, trees or various kinds of animal life etc. That would be taking it way to far.

A couple years ago I had a talk with my older brother, who has been a so called reborn Christian for nearly 40 years, about the possible interrelationship between all things. Most monotheists reject such a notion as did he. There is God and then there is everything else. While they will say God created all things this God is not in or part of what it created. There is a distinct division between the Creator and the created. It is this division people are questioning.

Simple dualistically based approaches to life (which is monotheism) no longer provides many individuals with a deeper need and feeling of being part of creation. Humans have a fundamental and primary need to belong. All of our personal relationships are about this. If a particular kind of theology promotes being separate from something they wonder why.

One of monotheisms greatest tenants is the battle between good and evil. This division has worked to sponsor many of our activities over the eons. Individual egos feed on division. As we are primarily an ego identified species it is of little wonder to me why and how this shows up in our individual and collective expressions.

Everyone feels their best when they feel connected to something other than just themselves. Our social interactions, institutions, clubs, church's and nations come about due to this. It is to me simply a reflection of our deeper identities which hint to us we are connected to All that Is or a part of the Whole. This kind of consciousness seems to be growing and as it does, strict monotheistic guidelines and conditions will increasingly loose their appeal.

Science could easily be said to be pantheistic in its approaches to gain further understandings. If science were to take the approach, as do many religionists, that there is no reason to conduct further research into the physical world since it's all explained in one book I wonder what kind of world we'd have.

To me its the height of our egos to think Infinity can be contained within our current understandings. This is another part of the reason people are beginning to move past simple monotheistic thinking.

I don't agree with the authors rationale that the growth in more pantheistic understandings is a result of or response to external conditions such as global warming and/or our technological advances. That would imply simple cause and effect which is dualism. As a race many are now hungering for understandings that are beyond dualism. Most of our current religious models simply refuse to go there.

All external situations and conditions have within them Infinite variables and/or causative energies. The study of some aspects of quantum physics affirms this. In other words there is so much more to any story than meets the eye.