Court: Bible no substitute for science.

[SirNitram]

Link

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."

Whine more, Mr. Monk.

[General Zod]

The gnashing of teeth coming from the Christian twats in this article is delicious.

[Kanastrous]

The fact that a judges' involvement in such a case is even necessary, is a measure of just how fucked up the US is getting, thanks to the Bible-Whackies and their supporters.

[Patrick Degan]

"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.

No, you stupid bitch. UC are merely saying that if you're going to fill students' heads with medieval nonsense, don't expect them to get admitted to anyplace where actual knowledge is a qualification.

[Guardsman Bass]

Piece by piece, creationist idiocy is slowly being excluded from any official role in the education system. Now, if we could just get a smackdown on the crap that's popping up in Texas ...

[Galvatron]

Are we witnessing the debushification of America? Please tell me this is a new trend.

[Superman]

The fact that a judges' involvement in such a case is even necessary, is a measure of just how fucked up the US is getting, thanks to the Bible-Whackies and their supporters.

I wouldn't go that far. Scopes Monkey Trial anyone?

The fact that rational thinking prevailed here is good news, not bad.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are we witnessing the debushification of America? Please tell me this is a new trend.

No. We are just winning the war on science in our schools

[Kanastrous]

The fact that a judges' involvement in such a case is even necessary, is a measure of just how fucked up the US is getting, thanks to the Bible-Whackies and their supporters.

I wouldn't go that far. Scopes Monkey Trial anyone?

The fact that rational thinking prevailed here is good news, not bad.

Way-late-edit, then: The fact that a judges' involvement in such a case in the year 2008 is even necessary, is a measure of just how fucked up the US is getting.

[Pablo Sanchez]

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.

My personal opinion is that any school teaching something like that should be denied the authority to issue state-recognized high school diplomas. That amounts to a blanket denunciation of human reason.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

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

It's always the wrong legal standard when it is not biased towards your religious dogma, even if the same standards are applied to private religious schools who have students that do get accepted.

[Wyrm]

"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."

Correction: religious courses only pretending to be science courses are not adequate substitutions for real science courses.

[Patrick Degan]

"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."

Awwwwww... Isn't that just too fucking bad? That's the way the Real World works.

[Count Dooku]

"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."

Awwwwww... Isn't that just too fucking bad? That's the way the Real World works.

Fundies wouldn't know the real world if it hit them in the face.

I feel proud to be a part of higher education in California!

[BountyHunterSAx]

This is terrible. With a supreme court as liberal as it is - and fundies able to push this battle all the way to the supreme court (no question in my mind)...this could be a landmark ruling in the wrong direction waiting to happen.

Make no mistake - i'm a huge fan of religion (I'm a practicing Muslim) and religious rights. But I'm *not* a fan of abuse of process or having poor education get a pass just because it's Islamic (or Christian, or Jewish)

-AHMAD

[SirNitram]

This is terrible. With a supreme court as liberal as it is - and fundies able to push this battle all the way to the supreme court (no question in my mind)...this could be a landmark ruling in the wrong direction waiting to happen.

Make no mistake - i'm a huge fan of religion (I'm a practicing Muslim) and religious rights. But I'm *not* a fan of abuse of process or having poor education get a pass just because it's Islamic (or Christian, or Jewish)

-AHMAD

This confuses me. SCOTUS isn't liberal, and while fundies are likely to push battles as far as they can, it's unlikely to get that far.

[Count Dooku]

This is terrible. With a supreme court as liberal as it is - and fundies able to push this battle all the way to the supreme court (no question in my mind)...this could be a landmark ruling in the wrong direction waiting to happen.

Make no mistake - i'm a huge fan of religion (I'm a practicing Muslim) and religious rights. But I'm *not* a fan of abuse of process or having poor education get a pass just because it's Islamic (or Christian, or Jewish)

-AHMAD

Religious rights do not include the ability to knowingly teach children false information, and then expect that false information to be valid at the college level. What's wrong with not accepting someone into a university program, or even the university itself, if they haven't met the basic requirements? From the article, I cite, ""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." I'm interested to see your answer. . .

[BountyHunterSAx]

I think you misread my post. I agreed with the decision of the court, and I said as much in my response. The reason I said it's 'terrible' is because I don't think the *supreme* court (given my view of their biases, which I admit freely is baseless - conceded to SirNitram) would rule the same way. And given the nature of the fundamentalist Christian mindset, I have little doubt that such a chain of appeals is likely to occur (again, possibly an oversight on my part). A landmark ruling by the supreme court to permit this type of stupidity would be catastrophic.

*NOWHERE* in my post did I say or even imply that i felt religious rights should allow for stupid people to get into college. In fact I explicitly said the opposite.

-AHMAD

[SirNitram]

Okay. It was the characterization of the Supreme Court as liberal which confused the hell out of me, as rejecting science has been the conservative gig for a while.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Oh - my bad - I meant conservative, since Bush was able to appoint two of the judges iirc.

Of course, having not followed up on their rulings if anyone argues that the Supreme Court is in fact not conservative but impartial and/or liberal, I would willingly concede that. But seeing as to how we have Roe vs. Wade as a precedent which has made abortion difficult via legal (instead of moral/ethical) channels in this country for so long, I gotta say this sort of thing coming up in the judicial system worries me.

Let's hope that their case just gets thrown out at a lower court.

-AHMAD

[Lagmonster]

Note to religion: You have the right to reject science, and educate you and yours according to same. Luckily, science also has the right to reject you, and it does so with far more finality.

[Solauren]

You know, I always find it rather, ridiculous, when a person attempts to use the law against someone or something, because the person doesn't meet the others qualifications or standards. Regardless of the source or levels of those standards.

Yes, I'm sure that's the way to go about things.

If you don't meet the qualifications for something, sue them. That will really show them you should be the one doing it!

You don't meet the standards, so there. Those standards are in place for a reason. It could be safety, it could be for the hell of it, or it could be as form filtering.

We don't let unliscenced drivers on the road (legally) because we feel they are unqualified and are dangerous. And this is the government, a very public organization.

Why should a private organization or institute not be allowed to do the same?

It doesn't matter if it's religious or not, or anti-religious. They are setting the standards, and in this case, are obviously throughly investigating if someone meets thier standards, and if there background training meets thier standards.

Hell, I wish more schools and organizations would be that, well, dedicated.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these asinine court cases start going the other way, given the current trend of highly organized dominionist forces training what are effectively undercover operatives intended to infiltrate and subvert government, particularly its legislative branch. The fundies are simply testing the waters, and will continue to do so until they get the results they want.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oooohhh poor babies. You're allowed to run your religious schools as indoctrination camps, but when the future career of fanatic imbeciles you produce is not subsidized by the state, you're being "secularized"?

As Mike's put it. You have freedom of thought and belief. You do not have the freedom to get an A for whatever you choose to believe. You have the freedom to get a F if it is wrong. The State acted perfectly here; allowing these cretins equivalency to other students would simply result in their failing at the university level or worse, diluting and corrupting the standards and credibility of the university institutions. Real life and business has does not owe you anything for your bullshit personal beliefs. You either know what is right and useful, or you don't.