Court considers unusual clash between creed, curriculum

Court considers unusual clash between creed, curriculum

By The Associated Press
01.05.06
BERKELEY, Calif. — In an unusual clash between creed and curriculum, students from an evangelical day school are suing the prestigious University of California system, charging that it's biased against conservative Christian viewpoints.

The suit was prompted by UC's refusal to approve courses at Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, Calif., where textbooks, among other things, endorse the Bible's absolute authority and challenge the theory of evolution. U.S. District Judge S. James Otero in Los Angeles is expected to rule soon on the university's motion to kill the lawsuit.

If the case proceeds, it will be unique. Neither UC nor the Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary's partner in the lawsuit, knows of any parallel.

"This is potentially a very serious lawsuit," said University of Akron political scientist John C. Green, that has "important implications for the broader set of relations between religious groups and universities."
(snip/...)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16261

If you are conservative and don't like what they teach, DON'T GO!!! Find another school that does accept what you believe, there are scores of religious based schools!

And in case they have realized, schools reject courses from other schools all the time for one reason or the next. How many of us transferred and had to retake something!?

I am tired of this...They can't have their rights enfringed on, but my rights to live as I see fit can be enfringed on, regulated, or made illegal...

Which, I suppose is the same thing as "conservative christian viewpoints."

Hmmm... maybe they have a case after all. Ignorance will be an officially-recognized religion!

:D

and I hope that Otero dusts off Rule 11 (he probably won't- but he should).

I've read about this case- all the fundies want here are special rights that no one else has. Anyone one else seeking admission without the prerequisites would have to go to a community college to make up the course work.

Once again, the fundies think the whole world should bend over backwards to accomodate their willful ignorance.

Tyler counters that Calvary students are getting the information they need. "They're going to be well-prepared entering college because they're not hearing just a creationist viewpoint or just an evolutionist viewpoint. They're learning all the viewpoints."

And:

... For instance, Biology for Christian Schools appears to settle the evolution debate in an introduction that says the Bible trumps any contradictory information students might encounter.

Yep, all the viewpoints, already labelled RIGHT and WRONG.

the college i graduated from was part of syracuse university, they wouldn't accept english credits from arizona state.

i ended up taking freshman english composition in my 5th year of college because of the language in the course description.

no sympathy for christian highschoolers from me.

a state university has to accept that course as a legitimate earth science course? I don't think so.

if they want to learn fairy tales, let them go to their own fairy-tale university.

Um, no it isn't. The University has a curriculum based upon science and fact. It requires that students who wish to attend have an education based upon science and fact. They don't have that - they can't attend UC. It's no different than requiring students to take certain math courses before attending the University. No school should be required to accommodate RELIGIOUS theory by accepting it as fact. How can students, especially those in science, biology, medicine, etc., fulfill their academic requirements if they don't believe in anything the school is teaching them? Society can not be expected to change the requirements necessary to get a science-based degree because someone's religion doesn't recognize certain aspects of science! :eyes:

That makes the University of California (UC) an agency of the STATE, and the STATE under the First Amendment can NOT pass a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It is a two edged sword. What the Petitioners are saying is that the University of California's policy is restricting their right to freely exercise their religion. You may disagree with that Religion, but as an organ of the State UC can NOT interfere with their Right to freely exercise their Religion.

On the other side UC is saying it has set certain minimal educational requirements for anyone entering their system. If you do not meet those requirements you can not enter the system. The problem is when one of those Requirements interfere with a group's religious belief (and their right to practice those beliefs).

This is going to be interesting when it hits the US Supreme Court. Scalia has said in the past that when you have a general rule that prohibits an act, that act is prohibited even if forbidding that act interferes with people religion (The Peyote Case, where the Court held Native Americans could NOT use the first amendment free exercise clause to smoke Peyote in violation of US general law making Peyote illegal to smoke). Based on that decision as long as UC can show its policy is religiously neutral and NOT intended to discriminate against Fundamentalist Christian the UC position will be upheld. On the other hand Scalia has indicated in the pass he will support Right wing attacks on Collages.

In many ways this is a classic balancing test, how do you balance the rights of people to practice their religion with the right of a STATE OWNED collage to set its academic standards. It will be interesting when it hits the Supreme Court.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act will also come into play, it may even give the US Supreme Court a chance to stoke that act down as violating the First Amendment.

They just can't claim it's science.

and trying to force UC to change its curriculum and/or definition of science to accommodate someone's religious beliefs. Christianity is not the only religion practiced in this country. Is UC expected to change academic requirements so as not to interfere with the beliefs of ALL religions or just the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians? How far is UC required to go? Think about it for a moment. Fundamentalists have a huge problem with science. Let's say UC (or any other university) alters the science curriculum so that it includes "facts" and theories that can't be tested or proven/disproven (they are simply accepted as fact because of a person's faith) and those students become doctors, biologists, physicists, engineers, etc. Would YOU trust any of those people with YOUR life and YOUR safety? I certainly wouldn't want to have a doctor who believes all disease is a "punishment" from God, nor would I want to drive on a bridge designed by an engineer who thinks gravity is a myth and only God can determine if it will fall down or not!

Since when does "freedom to practice religion" include forcing society to change its academic standards (which ultimately endangers everyone) in order to accommodate someone's beliefs? Faith is not fact. Religion is not science. People can believe whatever they want to believe, but the rest of society - including tax-payer funded, state owned universities - are not required to change the definition of science in order to validate someone's faith-based education.

The Fundies have adopted a new tactic in recent years ...
Any corporation, organization and institution that does not change the rules, laws or standards to specifically accommodate their religious beliefs (and no one else's) are accused of discrimination or infringing on religious freedom. What they don't seem to understand is that freedom of religion means that other people have the right NOT to practice their religion. :eyes:

I mention the Peyote case, where the Supreme Court UPHELD the enforcement of the ban on Peyote smoking even if Smoking Peyote was part of a person's religion. The rationale was the ban was NOT against Peyote smoking as a religion but a General ban. The same legal Logic should apply to this case, but Scalia (who I believe wrote the Peyote Decision) has also indicated support for Right wing fundamentalist Christians. Thus my comment that the Court may uphold this on some sort of Balancing test rationale (Which was the position of the dissent in the Peyote Case). The Rights in the Bill of Rights are NOT absolute, and never have been. The Rights have ALWAYS been balanced by other considerations. In the Peyote case, freedom of Religion was balanced by the need of the Country to regulate drugs (Whether you agree with that regulation or not IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE). In this case the Right of UC to set its own academic standards has to be balanced with the right of people to practice their religion. Given the Peyote Case the Court SHOULD RULE FOR UC, but this court is hopelessly political right now and may decide against UC just to please the Right wing. My comment it will be interesting to see how this case is decided.

The two "Wild Cards" in this case is first UC is a STATE OWNED UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, not a private Collage. This case would be dismissed out of hand if this case was against a Private School on the grounds the First Amendment just do not apply to such schools, but on the other hand the State must at least try to be neutral to ALL RELIGIONS (Including people who state they have no Religion).

The Second Wild Card is that UC has made accommodations to other groups that the Petitioners are saying are religious in nature. If the court finds that to be true than UC to be neutral to ALL religions may have to accommodate their Christian beliefs. The Petitioners are saying that UC has approved other courses that are religious in nature and provides the example of "Introduction to Buddhism" and "Issues in African History." a examples of such classes accepted by UC. UC says these were approved for they are "taught from an academic standpoint, not for personal religious growth" and thus NOT religious in nature. The Petitioners are saying the courses being rejected are of the same type and thus should be approved. This provides some wiggle room for the Court in that the Court could rule in favor of the Petitioners on the facts that the Courses are of the same type and if of the same type UC can not say one is acceptable and the Petitioner's classes are not. On the other hand the Court can accept UC's position that the Classes are fundamentally different and thus can be treated differently by UC. As I said this is big Wild Card in the Situation.