Judge says UC can deny religious course credit


festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
Here we go again!


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."

Judge says UC can deny religious course credit

This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
 

HK4U

New member
It is getting any more in this country that is o.k. to be anything except Christian.
 

MissPriss

New member
Sounds like they have reviewed the courses and texts from said courses, and aren't just banning Christian courses. If they have valid reasons, which it sounds like they do, then there shouldn't be a problem here, the students can still get into the school as long as they scored high enough on a placement test for those subjects. Which if they know what they need to from their Christian courses, no problem right?
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I'm willing to bet that the ACLU is behind this. They can deny it all they want, but the reason this is going on is because of some belief by someone in the ACLU that these courses violate the separation of church and state that they claim exists in the constitution. This is a backdoor attempt by secular progressives to take God completely out of schools, plain and simple.
 

kwo51

New member
Does coure work in other religions fail to get credit. They will get theirs in the end.
 

HK4U

New member
I'm willing to bet that the ACLU is behind this. They can deny it all they want, but the reason this is going on is because of some belief by someone in the ACLU that these courses violate the separation of church and state that they claim exists in the constitution. This is a backdoor attempt by secular progressives to take God completely out of schools, plain and simple.

I agree. It is funny how we here the term seperation of church and state talked about in relation to the first amendment when it is no where there to be found.
 

LVLouisCyphre

Obama is a mack daddy!
Tired of biting my tongue...

I was going to try to stay out of this one as holy wars are a philosophical bridge to no where but Friedrich Nietzsche said it best...

"There are people who want to make men's lives more difficult for no other reason than the chance it provides them afterwards to offer their prescription for alleviating life; their Christianity, for instance."

Yes, I agree with the ruling. Religion has no place in a public education system. One of the few times I find the 9th Circuit is right.
 

HK4U

New member
I was going to try to stay out of this one as holy wars are a philosophical bridge to no where but Friedrich Nietzsche said it best...

"There are people who want to make men's lives more difficult for no other reason than the chance it provides them afterwards to offer their prescription for alleviating life; their Christianity, for instance."

Yes, I agree with the ruling. Religion has no place in a public education system. One of the few times I find the 9th Circuit is right.


Well then you are at odds with a lot of the writings of our founding fathers. You are entitled to your opinion. That is one of two things we all have. As long as you understand that is your opinion and not that of the Constitution or most of the of the founding fathers. No where in the Constitution is the phrase Separation of Church and State. The patriots that wrote it were not trying to establish freedom from religion but rather freedom to worship as we pleased. And as usual the 9Th Circuit was wrong.

The following are but a tiny amount of what our founding fathers had to say.

"(T)he propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained" - George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

"I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Devine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testaments." - Benjamin Rush

"You have been instructed form your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature; the absolute necessity of a change of heart, and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ; of salvation thro' His meritorious righteousness only; and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." - Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." - Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." - Noah Webster

"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be entrusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not any government secure which is not supported by moral habits.... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." - Daniel Webster

"The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs in the affairs of men.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" - Benjamin Franklin


"He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country." - John Witherspoon, member of the Continental Congress and clergyman

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." - John Qunicy Adams

Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." - John Jay, First Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court

"Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." - Samuel Adams

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." John Jay the first Supreme Court Justice (for those of you who didn't know that)

"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington

“Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thee and thy son, Jesus Christ.” George Washington

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams 6th US President and son of John Adams

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776
 
Last edited:

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I was going to try to stay out of this one as holy wars are a philosophical bridge to no where but Friedrich Nietzsche said it best...

"There are people who want to make men's lives more difficult for no other reason than the chance it provides them afterwards to offer their prescription for alleviating life; their Christianity, for instance."

Yes, I agree with the ruling. Religion has no place in a public education system. One of the few times I find the 9th Circuit is right.

Can you tell me where the Constitution says that? And don't say that the part of the First Amendment that says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." as your evidence. What that portion of the First Amendment means is that Congress cannot establish a national church, in direct response to the Anglican church being established as the national church in England. While I do agree that public schools should not be used to indoctrinate students, offering courses in religion that students take willingly and voluntarily has nothing at all to do with Congress establishing a national church.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
The school's accreditation is really what should matter here. If the school is properly approved by whatever agency they use (here in FL we have SACS), then acceptance of credit shouldn't be an issue.

I went to a small public school...we learned about evolution but some of the teachers had objections and voiced their religious opinions. Even with "both views", we still didn't learn to think critically and in reality, the course credits probably shouldn't be accepted by any university. We were accredited though, and on paper, that's all that matters. That stupid method can't be much worse than looking at the textbooks though.

Critical thinking doesn't come out of a textbook or "multiple views" - it has much more to do with actual teaching technique and the students themselves. The discussion about education in this country needs to get past the vast oversimplifications that seem to characterize almost every political issue.
 

LVLouisCyphre

Obama is a mack daddy!
Well then you are at odds with a lot of the writings of our founding fathers. You are entitled to your opinion. That is one of two things we all have. As long as you understand that is your opinion and not that of the Constitution or most of the of the founding fathers. No where in the Constitution is the phrase Separation of Church and State.
The Constitution is an evolutionary document. Here is the history of how we arrived at seperation of church and state. You have to look at the Constitution and subsequent case law as a whole, not pick and choose what fits your agenda or beliefs.
The patriots that wrote it were not trying to establish freedom from religion but rather freedom to worship as we pleased. And as usual the 9Th Circuit was wrong.
The quotes you cited are irrelevant to the Constitution and the law as it is today.
 
Last edited:

LVLouisCyphre

Obama is a mack daddy!
Can you tell me where the Constitution says that? And don't say that the part of the First Amendment that says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." as your evidence. What that portion of the First Amendment means is that Congress cannot establish a national church, in direct response to the Anglican church being established as the national church in England. While I do agree that public schools should not be used to indoctrinate students, offering courses in religion that students take willingly and voluntarily has nothing at all to do with Congress establishing a national church.
Right here. You have to look at the Constitution and court rulings as a whole and how it applies today. Seperation of church and state was derived from the 14th amendment and several landmark Supreme Court rulings. You cannot cherry pick what portions of the Constitution fit your agenda or beliefs. It needs to be looked at as a whole.
 

HK4U

New member
Right here. You have to look at the Constitution and court rulings as a whole and how it applies today. Seperation of church and state was derived from the 14th amendment and several landmark Supreme Court rulings. You cannot cherry pick what portions of the Constitution fit your agenda or beliefs. It needs to be looked at as a whole.

A lot has happened over the years and a lot of bad rulings from the Supreme Court has been handed down. Do I have to remind most here that. I think not. Original intent is what you need to look at. Like the beauraucrats that run our government the Supreme Court is not what is was in the beginning of our country. Our country has been high jacked by an ungodly group of One World Government, NWO global elitists.
Leaving your Christianity at home when you leave the house and head to the work place even if it is the government was never the intent of the founding fathers


By the way the term Separation of church and state came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Ana Baptists
 
Last edited:

kwo51

New member
Very good HK. Lets hope the constitution is not a ever changing form. It may change to read no gun at all.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
It is funny how we here the term seperation of church and state talked about in relation to the first amendment when it is no where there to be found.

IMHO, the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." [emphasis added] was expressed that way not to keep Religion out of the business of the State, but to keep the State out of the business of Religion! A very important distinction if you ask me.

Also, if it is true that the percieved limitations of Christian religious teachings are so abhorrent to this Instutution of 'Higher Learning' that their students are unacceptable to them, then the same must be true of, for example, students of a Muslim school education, which teaches a much narrower view of the world, indeed!

Or do they have some excuse for tolerating those views?
 
Last edited:

HK4U

New member
IMHO, the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." [emphasis added] was expressed that way not to keep Religion out of the business of the State, but to keep the State out of the business of Religion! A very important distinction if you ask me.

Very good point Ektaar and one often missed by a lot of people today.
 

LVLouisCyphre

Obama is a mack daddy!
A lot has happened over the years and a lot of bad rulings from the Supreme Court has been handed down. Do I have to remind most here that. I think not.
Some of us don't view this ruling as bad. Need I remind you that the Supreme Court also ruled in our favor for Heller.
Original intent is what you need to look at.
Original intent? Slavery and women not having the right to vote were Constitutional at that time. Do you also condone those activities or beliefs?
Leaving your Christianity at home when you leave the house and head to the work place even if it is the government was never the intent of the founding fathers.
Some of us have no Christianity nor care to be any part of it. I do not need a religion to distinguish between right and wrong. It is also not my place nor is it the US or State government to decide which religion is the correct preferred one which is the original intent of the 1A. Need I also remind you that differing religions in the workplace causes conflict. It is in the best interest of order that the workplace as well as government be neutral to religion.

I am not going to deny the historic origins of the Constitution and that the founding fathers were predominately Christian. We are dealing with the law as it stands today. No religion has any place getting a portion of the tax dollars I pay. You have the right to practice whatever religion or no religion you wish. However that stops where another person's rights begin as it interferes with the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in our Declaration of Independence which predates the Constitution.
 

New Threads

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,128
Messages
621,630
Members
74,103
Latest member
jawman
Top