Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on July 19, 2008, 11:53:25 AM
-
is IMHO getting out of hand!
Wonder if they say this stuff about Islamic based education?
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69997
I remember when the lefties screamed about the hold the right had on education during the 60's and 70's and how the right was abusing sooooo many....
So the educators of that time bowing to the so called demands of the people let the left take over?
IMHO we are now having WORSE treatment from the academic LEFT!
AND IMHO this is a form of DISCRIMINATION and intolerance!
This is NOT about evolution vs creationism....
This is about CONTROL IMHO....
"When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose." ~~ Rep. Marie Parente
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am." ~~ Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
"According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit and almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition." ~~ Albert Jay Nock; The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it" ~~ George Bernard Shaw
-
"As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives."
A state university federally funded. This would seem to be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
<added>
Wonder where the ACLU stands on this? <rolls eyes>
-
This is one reason I hate the Public School system so much. Which btw, was originally patterned after that of Proto-Nazi Prussia, "kindergarten" and all.
There was a time in this country when commonly the villiage atheist and the villiage parson would hold great debates over checkers at the country store, iced tea in hand. To the amusement of all, I might add. Now thanks to the mandatory government education camps, our "civilization" is progressed to the point that people go to court, and try to pass laws to teach their opinions to children of those who disagree with them.
(BTW, before anyone raises the issue, I am a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. I'm just not comfortable taking a man's money from him to teach his children something he does not agree with.)
-
This is one reason I hate the Public School system so much. Which btw, was originally patterned after that of Proto-Nazi Prussia, "kindergarten" and all.
There was a time in this country when commonly the villiage atheist and the villiage parson would hold great debates over checkers at the country store, iced tea in hand. To the amusement of all, I might add. Now thanks to the mandatory government education camps, our "civilization" is progressed to the point that people go to court, and try to pass laws to teach their opinions to children of those who disagree with them.
(BTW, before anyone raises the issue, I am a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution. I'm just not comfortable taking a man's money from him to teach his children something he does not agree with.)
Sir :salute
Here IMHO we have a person that UNDERSTANDS..............
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am." ~~ Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
-
Oh the irony!!! Look at the University of California school logo. It says "Let there be light." They need to change that because that is a quote from the Bible. Genesis 1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
According to their own rules that is unacceptable. After all, it doesn't matter in what context those words are used, they are a quote from the Bible and hence, of Christian perspective. Until they change their logo, that means their own curriculum doesn't measure up to the standards they have set.
Les
-
nevermind.
-
Sheer idiocracy.
If children do not get balanced information of a subject how in the world can they be expected to form a balanced opinion?
Even thought I do not ascribe to the biblical myth I think that it should be covered in the curriculum. As should other religious perspectives.
-
Therein lies a problem.
Basically, just how many "religious perspectives" are you going to teach? All of them? Take alot of time out of class when they could be practicing long division.
The only solution I can think of, in a society that doesn't want any government institution to take a stand on religion (a good idea, IMO), is that the kids should be taught whatever about religion/origins the parents are paying to have them taught.
Sheer idiocracy.
If children do not get balanced information of a subject how in the world can they be expected to form a balanced opinion?
Even thought I do not ascribe to the biblical myth I think that it should be covered in the curriculum. As should other religious perspectives.
-
Therein lies a problem.
Basically, just how many "religious perspectives" are you going to teach? All of them? Take alot of time out of class when they could be practicing long division.
The only solution I can think of, in a society that doesn't want any government institution to take a stand on religion (a good idea, IMO), is that the kids should be taught whatever about religion/origins the parents are paying to have them taught.
Read the article.
This is not about teaching divine theory in standard classes. It's about UC (worthless college anyway) refusing to even acknowledge college classes taught at christian high schools.
-
Not to get too off topic, but are you housebound wrag? Just wondered why you are on the board so much you start more threads than the next prolific three posters combined. I think today I counted six you had started on page one alone.
-
Sheer idiocracy.
If children do not get balanced information of a subject how in the world can they be expected to form a balanced opinion?
Even thought I do not ascribe to the biblical myth I think that it should be covered in the curriculum. As should other religious perspectives.
A fair point but it is not what this thread or article is about :)
-
Not to get too off topic, but are you housebound wrag? Just wondered why you are on the board so much you start more threads than the next prolific three posters combined. I think today I counted six you had started on page one alone.
Nope not house bound.
It's Saturday and I went online and saw stuff I thought was interesting and worthy of discussion.
As to number of post....
There are many others that have and do post more.....
-
Not to get too off topic, but are you housebound wrag? Just wondered why you are on the board so much you start more threads than the next prolific three posters combined. I think today I counted six you had started on page one alone.
I seem to notice a pattern of harassment here. :uhoh
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,224257.0.html
Regards,
Sun
-
I seem to notice a pattern of harassment here. :uhoh
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,224257.0.html
Regards,
Sun
Yes I have noticed such and commented to such before. :(
Apparently my previous replies were forgotten or ignored? :huh
I suppose I could go through saying it all again but your reference might be enough. :)
I also suppose I could call it to the attention of ............... :O
But it is possible that all that is necessary is wait until it is read? :D
Thank you for your response Sundowner :salute Sir
-
Yeah, it's regular and sustained harassment all right, wondering why you post so much. There was a time "pre-skuzzy" when I seem to remember Pyro stating among his rules that no one was to start more than one thread a day.
Asking twice in seven months why you start so many threads hardly qualifies as harassment unless you really feel paranoid. But heck, you're not paranoid if I really am out to get you. :rofl :rofl
-
Yeah, it's regular and sustained harassment all right, wondering why you post so much. There was a time "pre-skuzzy" when I seem to remember Pyro stating among his rules that no one was to start more than one thread a day.
Asking twice in seven months why you start so many threads hardly qualifies as harassment unless you really feel paranoid. But heck, you're not paranoid if I really am out to get you. :rofl :rofl
Dago you seem to have a problem with me?
Wanna explain the REAL reason for your problem?
I ask because I've explained TWICE in 7 months why, AND I've tried to be polite both times.
Otherwise I think I'll just ignore you from this point onward.
As to the BBS rules then and now...
TAKE IT UP WITH HTC PLEASE....
-
Ah... when I first clicked on this I figured this was about a ruling about creationism not being allowed to be taught in public schools... but it's not.
Now that I've read it... perhaps it's not right, but I still think it's kind of silly to teach what was written down 3,000-4,000 years ago by primitive Hebrew farmers over modern science. Do they still teach that the world is flat in Christian schools as well, I wonder?
Sheer idiocracy.
If children do not get balanced information of a subject how in the world can they be expected to form a balanced opinion?
Even thought I do not ascribe to the biblical myth I think that it should be covered in the curriculum. As should other religious perspectives.
As a student in the American public school system I can confirm that in at least some curriculums (by some I mean that at least in the one I was taught) a wide variety of mythology is taught.
-
Dago you seem to have a problem with me?
Wanna explain the REAL reason for your problem?
I ask because I've explained TWICE in 7 months why, AND I've tried to be polite both times.
Otherwise I think I'll just ignore you from this point onward.
As to the BBS rules then and now...
TAKE IT UP WITH HTC PLEASE....
Being a little sensitive tonight aren't we?
I just asked if you were homebound, and I asked out of concern. My old squaddie whels is, and I have always held him in my heart and respected the enjoyment he has found in AH. Sorry if your previous answer escaped my memory, I don't commit your life to memory. I just thought possibly someone who starts a half dozen threads a day might be confined to his home due to health reason.
You are going to lead me to ask if you are a woman next what with your delicate nature.
Of course you can ignore me, and continue to spam this board all you want. My feelings won't be hurt.
-
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j129/claytonksmith/Dago.gif)
-
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am." ~~ Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
Damn wrag, I'm impressed. Next I'm gonna find out you actually know who John Scopes was, and then I'll have to change my whole opinion of you. :aok
Oh and BTW, Dago and I are both stalking you, but he keeps bogarting the binoculars. :D
j/k ;)
-
Damn wrag, I'm impressed. Next I'm gonna find out you actually know who John Scopes was, and then I'll have to change my whole opinion of you. :aok
Oh and BTW, Dago and I are both stalking you, but he keeps bogarting the binoculars. :D
j/k ;)
:rofl
Yep but I thought everyone knew about the Scopes Monkey Trial. :D
They even made a movie out of it IIRC. It was Spencer Tracy in one of the leads wasn't it????
So... your saying Dago is JEALOUS? :eek:
-
:rofl
Yep but I thought everyone knew about the Scopes Monkey Trial. :D
They even made a movie out of it IIRC. It was Spencer Tracy in one of the leads wasn't it????
So... your saying Dago is JEALOUS? :eek:
Inherit the wind. Excellent movie.
Yeah, I'm jealous. :rofl
-
Do they still teach that the world is flat in Christian schools as well, I wonder?
flat world is an invention of XIX century "historians". The fact that the earth is a sphere has been known for thousands of years.
A reminder of a statue in Ephesus showing the round world at the feet of one of the rulers (don't remember which one)
(http://mazurfamily.name/travels/Ephesus%202007/full/DSC03708.jpg)
Shinto/Buddhist temples in Japan often have two statues of lions. A female on one side a male on another. A female has her paw on a little cub, a male has it's paw on a sphere symbolizing the world.
Imperial insignia in Byzantium consisted of a scepter (symbolizing the power) and an "apple", a sphere with a cross on top of it symbolizing the world dominated by Christianity.
A (now destroyed) statue of Justinian in Constantinople, look what he holds in his left hand... a globus cruciger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger)
Wikipedia:
"The globus cruciger (Latin, "cross-bearing orb") is an orb (lat. globus) topped (lat. gerere = to wear) with a cross (lat. crux), a Christian symbol of authority used throughout the Middle Ages and even today on coins, iconography and royal regalia. It symbolises Christ's (the cross) dominion over the world (the orb), literally held in the dominion of an earthly ruler (or sometimes celestial being such as an angel). When held by Christ himself, the subject is known in the iconography of Western art as Salvator Mundi ("Saviour of the World"). It is associated with the sceptre."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Gurlitt_Justinian_column.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Justinian
-
Inherit the wind. Excellent movie.
Yeah, I'm jealous. :rofl
Great movie. :aok Was pleasantly surprised to see Gene Kelly in it.
A reminder of a statue in Ephesus showing the round world at the feet of one of the rulers (don't remember which one)
Been there, but I don't recall the statue. Was still recovering from the nude beach in Greece. :D
-
I went to a Christian school for 7 years. When it comes to science, they are a bunch of whacko's. Fortunately I went to a public high school.
-
This Californian University obviously has an anti-christian agenda. I defy anyone here to deny it. You want evidence? How about the FACT that private schools (christian schools make up a significant portion) students do better and are better prepared for college on average than their public school counter parts? I wonder if they are supporters of affirmative action? If they were really concerned about academic preparation they would not be.
John 3:19
"And this is the basis for judgment: The light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light because their actions were evil."
-
"Our argument is that the government has to be neutral when it comes to viewpoint."
I couldn't agree more with that statement.
I'm not sure how UC will prevail in this lawsuit since (according to the article) they don't disallow any religion in textbooks except Christianity. UC has also apparently stated that various textbooks would be allowed if just the Biblical references were removed. So it's not like the content of the textbooks is in question, only the religious references, in this case, references to Christianity.
-
is IMHO getting out of hand!
Wonder if they say this stuff about Islamic based education?
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69997
I remember when the lefties screamed about the hold the right had on education during the 60's and 70's and how the right was abusing sooooo many....
So the educators of that time bowing to the so called demands of the people let the left take over?
IMHO we are now having WORSE treatment from the academic LEFT!
AND IMHO this is a form of DISCRIMINATION and intolerance!
This is NOT about evolution vs creationism....
This is about CONTROL IMHO....
"When you sit down to negotiate on what you already have, you lose." ~~ Rep. Marie Parente
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am." ~~ Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
"According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit and almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition." ~~ Albert Jay Nock; The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it" ~~ George Bernard Shaw
schools/knowlege................faith/church
-
Sounds to me like intolerance by christianity.
I don't see how you can weasel their god into a science textbook say like physics or chemistry. And I would be mightily concerned over the quality of a science textbook that included religious (fantasy) references. Or is it even worse - have these books been approved by 'the church' based on their content? The fact that they have to wedge religion into these boxes sound like a very insecure place to me, if your religion needs to be forced into all aspects of learning than you have some issues.
-
Sounds to me like intolerance by christianity.
I don't see how you can weasel their god into a science textbook say like physics or chemistry. And I would be mightily concerned over the quality of a science textbook that included religious (fantasy) references. Or is it even worse - have these books been approved by 'the church' based on their content? The fact that they have to wedge religion into these boxes sound like a very insecure place to me, if your religion needs to be forced into all aspects of learning than you have some issues.
Sounds to me like intolerance by Vulcan.
I don't see how you can weasel your beliefs into other people's textbooks. And I would be mightily concerned over the quality of a science textbook that included socialist mandates from Vulcan. Or is it even worse - have the standard public school books been approved by Lord Communism based on their content? The fact that you have to wedge your belief into these boxes sound very much like insecurity to me, if your "(anti)Religion needs to be force into all aspects of learning then Vulcan has some issues.
-
Sounds to me like intolerance by christianity.
I don't see how you can weasel their god into a science textbook say like physics or chemistry. And I would be mightily concerned over the quality of a science textbook that included religious (fantasy) references. Or is it even worse - have these books been approved by 'the church' based on their content? The fact that they have to wedge religion into these boxes sound like a very insecure place to me, if your religion needs to be forced into all aspects of learning than you have some issues.
I'm wondering if you read the article. It clearly stated that this facist university is denying students who have a religous education the right to take their science courses.
-
"As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives."
TEXTBOOKS akiron. TEXTBOOKS. Read the article yourself mate. Don't throw your christian zealotry at me. Same goes to you lasersailor.
It's not anti-religion, it's the simple fact that religion doesn't have a place in some subjects, such as physics, chemistry, biology. They are not blocking students from entry based on a christian background, they are blocking them from entry because they are being taught from textbooks with content thats not appropriate for the subjects.
lasersailor, I' m not a communist, nor do I condone teaching 'athiesm' in a physics class. Dunno bout the US but in NZ christian schools keep their religious content strictly to the religious courses, and leave it out of the non-religious subjects.
Talk typical zealot kneejerk reaction, you'd think someone was nailing you to a cross or something.
-
I always find how the Socialist Religion followers squirm when their same logic is applied back to them very amusing.
-
I always find how the Socialist Religion followers squirm when their same logic is applied back to them very amusing.
Err how was I squirming - like I said I don't advocate teaching athiesm in unrelated subjects. Socialist religion? I'm not a socialist. Or is that what you label people who don't believe in your fantasy zombie character that walks on water? We're all socialists? Are you stuck in the 50's or something?
It's not a religion, I don't preach it, I don't teach it. I don't go to a church or temple to worship it. If you want to believe in your religion thats fine by me, but keep it out of the sciences please.
-
"As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives."
TEXTBOOKS akiron. TEXTBOOKS. Read the article yourself mate. Don't throw your christian zealotry at me. Same goes to you lasersailor.
It's not anti-religion, it's the simple fact that religion doesn't have a place in some subjects, such as physics, chemistry, biology. They are not blocking students from entry based on a christian background, they are blocking them from entry because they are being taught from textbooks with content thats not appropriate for the subjects.
lasersailor, I' m not a communist, nor do I condone teaching 'athiesm' in a physics class. Dunno bout the US but in NZ christian schools keep their religious content strictly to the religious courses, and leave it out of the non-religious subjects.
Talk typical zealot kneejerk reaction, you'd think someone was nailing you to a cross or something.
You implied that Christians were forcing their own texts into this, and I use the term loosely, university. I don't think your understood the situation and now you're tap dancing. You seem to have a real hatred for Christians, much like this university. Hey, it's your constitutional right. It isn't the right of a University that accepts federal funds however to deny a student classes based strictly on the religous perspective of the perpatory classes. Your hatred is blinding you.
-
You implied that Christians were forcing their own texts into this, and I use the term loosely, university. I don't think your understood the situation and now you're tap dancing.
I quoted the article directly. What do you not understand about "textbooks by major Christian book publishers". Did you even read the article. Or is this the standard zealot tactic of making it personal when the facts get in the way? Tell me how do you teach physics from christian perspective?
-
Tell me how do you teach physics from christian perspective?
water sometimes behaves like a solid? ;)
what difference does it make which book you've used as long as you know the stuff. I'm agnostic, so I don't care about religion, but to me this is a clear attempt to eliminate/suppress religion by making the lives of Christians just a bit more difficult.
Baby steps...
As I said, I do not care about religion but it pisses me off when intolerant Atheists push their point of view on the rest of the society. It is fine fine and dandy if they do it in private as individuals and on their on buck. But it is not acceptable that they use public institutions (and thus my money) to do that.
And yes, a militant Atheism is a religion. An unfounded belief in non existence of something and militant, intolerant effort to push it down everybody's throat.
-
I quoted the article directly. What do you not understand about "textbooks by major Christian book publishers". Did you even read the article. Or is this the standard zealot tactic of making it personal when the facts get in the way? Tell me how do you teach physics from christian perspective?
Are you suggesting that private institutions do not have the right to teach from a Christian perspective? I think you'll find our constitution guarantees that right. Are you still not understanding that no one is asking the university to use any specific textbooks or teach from a Christian perspective? This state and federally funded university is denying citizens with freedom of religion guaranteed as a constitutional right the right to take certain course based soley on their prior religious education. I think you're the zealot here if you can't see how wrong this is.
-
water sometimes behaves like a solid? ;)
what difference does it make which book you've used as long as you know the stuff. I'm agnostic, so I don't care about religion, but to me this is a clear attempt to eliminate/suppress religion by making the lives of Christians just a bit more difficult.
Or is it a clear attempt by religion to weasel their beliefs into science (ie creationism)? I can't recall in my high school days any portion of physics that would require a religious perspective. Like you say it's about knowing your stuff, and I suppose it really boils down to what the publishers are putting in these books. But this is something clearly creeping into their textbooks not something that was there earlier and has been picked up on just now. So who's really trying to gain something here? To me it appears to be the christians by adding their perspective into subjects that should have no need for religious content.
-
This state and federally funded university is denying citizens with freedom of religion guaranteed as a constitutional right the right to take certain course based soley on their prior religious education.
No they are not. Your zealotry has blinded you to reading the facts. Probably the result of a christian biased education.
The "state and federally funded university" is denying citizens the right to take courses based on their background education of the subject. If I were to learn physics from the Wican's Book of Magic I doubt any NZ university would accept me either.
All these christian schools need to do is use standard non-religious science textbooks and the problem goes away. They can still teach religious beliefs as much as they like and their students would be accepted into the university.
-
No they are not. Your zealotry has blinded you to reading the facts. Probably the result of a christian biased education.
The "state and federally funded university" is denying citizens the right to take courses based on their background education of the subject. If I were to learn physics from the Wican's Book of Magic I doubt any NZ university would accept me either.
All these christian schools need to do is use standard non-religious science textbooks and the problem goes away. They can still teach religious beliefs as much as they like and their students would be accepted into the university.
So how do you teach math and physics in such a Christian way as to hinder this universities efforts? I didn't go to a Christian school but two of my younger brothers did. One has a Phd in organic chemistry from Scripps and the other an MBA from Pepperdine. This university is engaging in zealous bigotry and who will stop them? Certainly not the ACLU.
-
So how do you teach math and physics in such a Christian way as to hinder this universities efforts?
That's what I'd like to know. Obviously these books have some content which is objectionable, maybe the university had to draw a line over content such as creationism creeping into these books? Remember it is the books the are essentially not accepting as material suitable for background education for these courses.
-
That's what I'd like to know. Obviously these books have some content which is objectionable, maybe the university had to draw a line over content such as creationism creeping into these books? Remember it is the books the are essentially not accepting as material suitable for background education for these courses.
No doubt they have material objectionable to these bigots, that's why they are refusing them classes. Since they are taking our money to teach these kids they do not have the right to judge their religion, including whether or not the kids were taught creationism.
-
No doubt they have material objectionable to these bigots, that's why they are refusing them classes. Since they are taking our money to teach these kids they do not have the right to judge their religion, including whether or not the kids were taught creationism.
Ahh whether or not the kids were taught creationism, what if the kids are ONLY taught creationism? Regardless of religion would that be a suitable level of education for entry into a university course?
-
Ahh whether or not the kids were taught creationism, what if the kids are ONLY taught creationism? Regardless of religion would that be a suitable level of education for entry into a university course?
When I went to college I took a test to determine my level of academic proficiency. Why isn't an SAT satisfactory for placement? If they score low in science make 'em take remedial courses. I really hope someone sues the crap out of the individuals violating constitutional rights here.
-
When I went to college I took a test to determine my level of academic proficiency. Why isn't an SAT satisfactory for placement? If they score low in science make 'em take remedial courses.
good point. As far as I know universities are trying to weasel out of SATs because they expose disparities among different "groups" of people and of course we can't have that.
Screw the merit and ability, let's just arbitrarily decide who gets in based on the political wishes of the left (and yanking the Christian's chain is a bonus).
Not sure whether that was ever implemented, but I remember proposals that every high school should simply "nominate" a certain percentage of their top students who would be guaranteed an entry. This way lousy schools will populate the same percentage of students as the good ones.
It's only fair. You know that schools are "bad" only because of lack of money, so "good" neighbourhoods have an "unfair" advantage over the bad ones. This needs to be corrected of course.
-
"As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn't qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives."
TEXTBOOKS akiron. TEXTBOOKS. Read the article yourself mate. Don't throw your christian zealotry at me. Same goes to you lasersailor.
It's not anti-religion, it's the simple fact that religion doesn't have a place in some subjects, such as physics, chemistry, biology. They are not blocking students from entry based on a christian background, they are blocking them from entry because they are being taught from textbooks with content thats not appropriate for the subjects.
lasersailor, I' m not a communist, nor do I condone teaching 'athiesm' in a physics class. Dunno bout the US but in NZ christian schools keep their religious content strictly to the religious courses, and leave it out of the non-religious subjects.
Talk typical zealot kneejerk reaction, you'd think someone was nailing you to a cross or something.
Read the entire article, the only religion being discriminated against like this is Christianity. No other religion is being targeted in this manner. In fact, no other world views are being targeted in this manner.
In other words, (UC schools) routinely approve courses which add viewpoints such as non-Christian religion, feminism, an ethnic preference, a political viewpoint, or multiculturalism, or that focus on religions such as Buddhism or Judaism, (and plaintiffs believe they should evenhandedly approve such courses), but disapprove courses which add viewpoints based on conservative Christianity," the court filings said.
-
Read the entire article, the only religion being discriminated against like this is Christianity. No other religion is being targeted in this manner. In fact, no other world views are being targeted in this manner.
Are there schools sending students to this university using science books based on an islamic or jewish perspective?
It wouldn't occur to you to think that it is only happening because only one religion is arrogant enough to think it can rewrite science?
Tell me, what do you think the buddhist explaination of the creation of the earth universe, etc, is?
-
Ahh whether or not the kids were taught creationism, what if the kids are ONLY taught creationism? Regardless of religion would that be a suitable level of education for entry into a university course?
I went to a private high school, I was taught that technically, creationism and evolution are both theories and cannot be proven as scientific fact. I have never believed in evolution, ever. I just find it way to far fetched to think that a one celled animal one day just happened to pop into existence and everything else evolved from there. I find it far easier to believe in God as a Creator.
-
Are there schools sending students to this university using science books based on an islamic or jewish perspective?
It wouldn't occur to you to think that it is only happening because only one religion is arrogant enough to think it can rewrite science?
Tell me, what do you think the buddhist explaination of the creation of the earth universe, etc, is?
Read the part I quoted from the article again.
I could care less what the buddhist explanation for the creation of the earth and universe is since I am not a Buddhist. ;)
-
It's all just a plot to gradually and totally eradicate your constitution.
Elfie, I find it intriguing you would rather put your faith in a giant omnipotent alien being one day deciding to make an entire universe for poops and giggles than the gradual rise of a planets' life and ecosystem based on a struggle to adapt, overcome and succeed.
-
I went to a private high school, I was taught that technically, creationism and evolution are both theories and cannot be proven as scientific fact. I have never believed in evolution, ever. I just find it way to far fetched to think that a one celled animal one day just happened to pop into existence and everything else evolved from there. I find it far easier to believe in God as a Creator.
So who created your god? Did he/she/it just pop into existence?
-
So who created your god? Did he/she/it just pop into existence?
The Bible tells us the God has always been and always will be. There is no beginning or end to God. I take that on faith.
-
It's all just a plot to gradually and totally eradicate your constitution.
Elfie, I find it intriguing you would rather put your faith in a giant omnipotent alien being one day deciding to make an entire universe for poops and giggles than the gradual rise of a planets' life and ecosystem based on a struggle to adapt, overcome and succeed.
Who says He is giant? We don't really know. He can't be alien since we were created in His image. :rock
:disclaimer: These are my views, I am in no way forcing them onto you. ;)
-
That doesn't mean that he isn't. The definition of Alien is as foreign, not of this world. This god you speak of cannot be of this world and have created it at the same time? What came first the god or the universe?
The other question is of course, if in the beginning there was the word and the word was god, where did the thought that created the word come from in the first place?
-
That doesn't mean that he isn't. The definition of Alien is as foreign, not of this world. This god you speak of cannot be of this world and have created it at the same time? What came first the god or the universe?
The other question is of course, if in the beginning there was the word and the word was god, where did the thought that created the word come from in the first place?
I'm not sure God would fall under the definition of alien. I certainly don't think of Him as alien. I think of Him as my spiritual Father.
a·li·en (l-n, lyn)
adj.
1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
n.
1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.
tr.v. a·li·ened, a·li·en·ing, a·li·ens Law
To transfer (property) to another; alienate.
In response to your second question, I don't know but I'll try to remember to ask Him after I die. :)
-
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
That sounds like a god to me :lol
-
The Bible tells us the God has always been and always will be. There is no beginning or end to God. I take that on faith.
So while it's you cannot accept other 'things' (eg the universe) to potentially exist in this fashion, it is quite ok for your god to exist in this state based on the claims of a committee of 2nd century roman bishops?
-
People PLEASE!
This thread is NOT about what you are arguing about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is about the CLAIM that a PUBLIC service/institution (higher education) singling out a group of people and discriminating against them.
You want to discuss evolution vs creation or there is or is not a God START YOUR OWN THREAD!
-
People PLEASE!
This thread is NOT about what you are arguing about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is about the CLAIM that a PUBLIC service/institution (higher education) singling out a group of people and discriminating against them.
You want to discuss evolution vs creation or there is or is not a God START YOUR OWN THREAD!
Way to just kill the thread Wrag! :D
Seriously, my apologies, I didn't mean for it to get so far off track.
-
People PLEASE!
This thread is NOT about what you are arguing about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is about the CLAIM that a PUBLIC service/institution (higher education) singling out a group of people and discriminating against them.
You want to discuss evolution vs creation or there is or is not a God START YOUR OWN THREAD!
As far I know they only singled out a group of BOOKS, those same people could be taught from approved books and there would be no issues.
-
As far I know they only singled out a group of BOOKS, those same people could be taught from approved books and there would be no issues.
Excuse me............
Who decides which books are APPROVED? YOU?
That don't IMHO float ANY boat!
Saying that someone CAN'T learn something because they read an UNAPPROVED book is IMHO LAME!
It's IMHO an EXCUSE to discriminate!
If the SAT says they have the KNOWLEDGE then why would a BOOK they read disqualify them from attending and continuing the education and learning?
I find myself wondering if this isn't more of a case of someone seeking REVENGE on society for what they felt was discrimination against them?
AND I have to say two wrongs STILL don't add up to a single right!
-
Saying that someone CAN'T learn something because they read an UNAPPROVED book is IMHO LAME!
Err actually it's fairly common in education to want people to learn/teach from an approved curriculum.
Dunno bout the SAT question, we don't have the full story to make a call on that, you are just jumping to a conclusion on that.
-
Jebus forbid one of the top 5 universities in the world actually has admission requirements that students actually learn reality-based academic information instead of ancient superstitions!
-
Top 5? In the world?
:rofl
I hope you aren't banned again, at least for a little while. You're good for one decent laugh a week.
-
Jebus forbid one of the top 5 universities in the world actually has admission requirements that students actually learn reality-based academic information instead of ancient superstitions!
Why not judge suitability on SAT scores? This is not a rhetorical question. My answer is that they are anti-chrisitian bigots. If you have no better answer mine stands.
-
If you check the california government link to california postsecondary education accreditation by the U.S. Department of Education.
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/AccreditingAgencies.asp?Type=USDOE
You will note that Christian religious schools are accredited along with bacheloric and liberal arts programs. The UC college system is targeting christians "AGAIN". They have been taken to court numerous times in the past 10 years on 1st Amendment issues related to christianity and have lost. The california education system from day care through post doctoral is rabidly anti-christian.
The UC system is a state school system and federaly funded system. So if this goes to the courts the following will be touched on.
“Thus,” the Supreme Court made clear in
Cantwell, “the Amendment embraces two concepts—
freedom to believe and freedom to act.” In short, the
meaning of the religion clauses was stated clearly by the
Supreme Court in Zelman: The state may not “advance”
(Establishment Clause) nor “inhibit” (Free Exercise
Clause) religion.
Vulcan has no understanding of the U.S. constitution, especially how the 1st amendment applys to religion and government funded schools.
If a student passes the S.A.T.,,what does it matter how he or she was schooled before taking the exam?
If you go to F.I.R.E. "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" : http://www.thefire.org/
You will see a pattern of U.S. colleges and universities descriminating against christians and christian student organizations that end up with the institution shooting themselves in the foot for violations of the student(s) 1st amendment rights. American institutions of higher learning are dominated by Liberal secularists who descriminate against christian students as an act of faith.
-
Top 5? In the world?
Actually top 3 if you go by Academic Ranking of World Universities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities) but I'm not going to nitpick.
-
Actually top 3 if you go by Academic Ranking of World Universities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities) but I'm not going to nitpick.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Oh god! Please stop! I never knew that pansies were allowed to say TWO funny things a week.
*wipes away a tear* Oooh, that felt good.
The day I take the People's Communistic State of China's rankings of world colleges seriously, is the day I voluntarily move to San Francisco.
-
Easy with the pansy stuff, don't want go get a ban now do we? Anyways I'm a top not a bottom.
If you don't like ARWU (which is widely regarded as the best international ranking system) you can check out Times Higher Education. (http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/overall_rankings/top_100_universities/) UC doesn't do as well there, but it's still on top as far as public education, and certainly far above your earlier remarks.
-
Vulcan has no understanding of the U.S. constitution, especially how the 1st amendment applys to religion and government funded schools.
If a student passes the S.A.T.,,what does it matter how he or she was schooled before taking the exam?
Actually it's more like I don't have understanding of the US education system. So maybe you can help...
In NZ entrance into university was at one time via accreditation and a SAT like exam level (UE). Accreditation was given by your school, to be able to do this the school had to teach from an approved subject structure and curriculum (eg certain levels of physics knowledge would be expected). If the school say taught creationism instead of evolution, then a university would be unlikely to accept accredited students, however if those students passed the UE exam then they would be accepted (regardess of the school or their religious beliefs).
Reading the article I assumed a similar thing happened, if the system works in a different way then yes you are right - the SAT scores (if it is like our old UE exam) should allow entrance.
-
What many forget is that there are soo many different beliefs even within the christian camp, just think of how many different denominations of christianity there are. School is not, nor should it ever be the place to have religious views taught, it is a sanctuary safe from those views and should stay that way. I have always said, faith is a personal issue and should stay that way.
-
Easy with the pansy stuff, don't want go get a ban now do we? Anyways I'm a top not a bottom.
If you don't like ARWU (which is widely regarded as the best international ranking system) you can check out Times Higher Education. (http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/overall_rankings/top_100_universities/) UC doesn't do as well there, but it's still on top as far as public education, and certainly far above your earlier remarks.
And yet they seem to be a bunch of close minded bigots. One must wonder who ranks these schools? Could it be the bigots themselves?
-
I've been through the UC a-g approval process and didn't encounter any bigotry or even an opportunity for bigotry. It's very impersonal, and based purely on academic principles. Looks like the court agrees. (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary_033108.pdf) The only things that UC are "bigoted" against in the a-g approval process are poor textbooks and poor courses. Religion belongs in Social Studies. Anyone who tries to bring it into to Physics or Math or English is going to be rightly rejected.
-
What many forget is that there are soo many different beliefs even within the christian camp, just think of how many different denominations of christianity there are. School is not, nor should it ever be the place to have religious views taught, it is a sanctuary safe from those views and should stay that way. I have always said, faith is a personal issue and should stay that way.
I'm certainly glad you did not write our constitution. Maybe you can explain why religious schools in this country perform far better on average than socialistic public schools? Ever hear the phrase, "the proof is in the pudding"?
-
Why not judge suitability on SAT scores?
Didja even read Wrag's article?
Under the admissions guidelines to University of California colleges, in-state students must either score in the top two to three percent on standardized tests or complete a core curriculum of approved preparatory classes (called "a-g" classes) to be deemed eligible for entrance into the state university system.
-
Maybe you can explain why religious schools in this country perform far better on average than socialistic public schools?
My guess would be that you have to pay to go to a private school so only middle-class-and-up families who care about their childrens' educations and no ghetto scum bringing down their averages.
But if you actually think it's because they are taught 2000 year old mythology then...
lol
-
Yep, in this country, being rich and white is a much bigger indicator of academic success than religious denomination.
-
I've been through the UC a-g approval process and didn't encounter any bigotry or even an opportunity for bigotry. It's very impersonal, and based purely on academic principles. Looks like the court agrees. (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary_033108.pdf) The only things that UC are "bigoted" against in the a-g approval process are poor textbooks and poor courses. Religion belongs in Social Studies. Anyone who tries to bring it into to Physics or Math or English is going to be rightly rejected.
And we all know how unbiased the Kalifornia courts are. Answer the questions I've posed. Why deny students who perform on average far above average based soley on their religious beliefs while soliciting students performing below average based on racial profile? If this isn't bigotry I defy you to show me a better example.
-
What's this racial stuff? Did I miss something?
Also it was a federal court, not a California court.
And they aren't rejecting any student based on religious belief. Only that they did not study the required a-g curriculum and did not achieve sufficient test scores to bypass that requirement. If we want our children to go to good universities and succeed, it's important to send them to good schools that prepare them for university.
-
The only things that UC are "bigoted" against in the a-g approval process are poor textbooks and poor courses. Religion belongs in Social Studies. Anyone who tries to bring it into to Physics or Math or English is going to be rightly rejected.
And why does it matter? If anything, the crappy books handicap the students, but if they (or their parents) decide to use them what business of the UC is to interfere.
What matters is the applicant's knowledge and ability. It matters not how he achieved it. C'mon, you are an engineer.
Many people home school their kids. I have a friend (the most brilliant person I've ever met) who home schooled his kids. Are you going to go after them next? Cod knows what they teach their own kids. Obviously we can't have people influence/teach their own kids. They are a property of the state after all, so they have to be taught "properly" from the "proper" and "approved" books.
Why does not merit, skill, intelligence and ability matter any more. The mediocre "educators" will decide what is the "proper" education, and Cod forbid some of us are smarter than others.
-
What matters is the applicant's knowledge and ability. It matters not how he achieved it.
Again, read Wrag's article. The a-g requirements are waived if you achieve a high enough test score.
-
What's this racial stuff? Did I miss something?
Also it was a federal court, not a California court.
And they aren't rejecting any student based on religious belief. Only that they did not study the required a-g curriculum and did not achieve sufficient test scores to bypass that requirement. If we want our children to go to good universities and succeed, it's important to send them to good schools that prepare them for university.
If you read the court ruling you posted the only specific objection to the text you'll find is one biologist's referencing one of the texts claiming that a christian must believe in creationism. That's religious belief and a federally funded universtiy has no business telling people what they can and can't believe.
-
A federally funded university also has no business placing on its list of requirements a text that teaches religious beliefs.
I will read the full ruling though.
I gotta go now, catch you later. We disagree but you've been respectful. <S>
-
A federally funded university also has no business placing on it's list of requirements a text that teaches religious beliefs.
Requirement implies there are no alternatives. They should be judging texts based solely on academic criteria and not religious perspective. Their dogma is showing and it's pretty ugly from here.
-
A federally funded university also has no business placing on its list of requirements a text that teaches religious beliefs.
I will read the full ruling though.
I gotta go now, catch you later. We disagree but you've been respectful. <S>
<S> :)
-
Only that they did not study the required a-g curriculum ...
why does that matter? test the hell out of them, that's the only thing that matters.
... and did not achieve sufficient test scores to bypass that requirement.
completely agree, you fail... no soup for you. Come back one year [Soup Nazi]
If we want our children to go to good universities and succeed, it's important to send them to good schools that prepare them for university.
sure, but if they choose another method of learning why do you care? We've already agreed that what matters is the proficiency. I don't care whether they studied or perhaps bought their knowledge on amazon.com. If they are qualified you can't deny them entry, just because you do not like the learning process.
-
I'm certainly glad you did not write our constitution. Maybe you can explain why religious schools in this country perform far better on average than socialistic public schools? Ever hear the phrase, "the proof is in the pudding"?
Don't, you won't win. The proof in the pudding is that private schools are not only funded far better but also average fewer than 15 students per teacher, also the socio-economic background of private school students is higher. This is not rocket science, it is common knowlege within the educational system. Funding, materials, student teacher ratio, and socio-economic background of students, are the sorce for any performance differences no matter private or public.
-
My guess would be that you have to pay to go to a private school so only middle-class-and-up families who care about their childrens' educations and no ghetto scum bringing down their averages.
But if you actually think it's because they are taught 2000 year old mythology then...
lol
Well, yeah this kinda sums it up, albeit in different words than I would have chosen. :aok
-
From 59funkmans link to the first hearing and Judge Otero's decision:
Remaining as issues for trial are the reasonableness of Defendants' challenged decisions to deny approval for specific religious school cources under the A-G Guidlines and Policies and plaintiffs' other "as applied" chalanges. 28 March 2008
I read the judge's findings. For the most part the High School was trying to use limited statistics and evidence discovered from individules working at UC who are christian biased. They lost most of their standing to the "Lemon test" because the judge had to rule on UC as a faceless government entity. Not instead as the culture of christian intolerance that its governing body tacitly engender, encourage and support under the umbrella of being a government service provided for the greater good of the majority.
UC knew how to show themselves under the Lemon test as a faceless government entity. The high school did not have enough factual evidence to show a culture of christian hostility even though it's common knowlege. The high school made the mistake of "common knowlege" supporting their accusations.
It looks like the only case is the question of why out of state students from religious high schools who study from the same books are accepted to UC but in state students are denied with the high school being told they need to change thier curriculum to UC A-G standards of secularism.
-
Requirement implies there are no alternatives. They should be judging texts based solely on academic criteria and not religious perspective. Their dogma is showing and it's pretty ugly from here.
Tell me what portions of say physics, maths, biology, or chemistry require the mention/discussion of christian beliefs?
-
sure, but if they choose another method of learning why do you care? We've already agreed that what matters is the proficiency. I don't care whether they studied or perhaps bought their knowledge on amazon.com. If they are qualified you can't deny them entry, just because you do not like the learning process.
Read the article, if they proven to be qualified/proficient then their background learning process is irrelevant:
Under the admissions guidelines to University of California colleges, in-state students must either score in the top two to three percent on standardized tests or complete a core curriculum of approved preparatory classes (called "a-g" classes) to be deemed eligible for entrance into the state university system.
If they can score well enough then they must have studied a under a curriculum approved by the university. I don't think that is a big ask at all, if you open the doors to any old curriculum then where does it end? Is wican witchcraft going to be OK to get you into chemistry perhaps? Is that where you'd like this to go?
-
The only things that UC are "bigoted" against in the a-g approval process are poor textbooks and poor courses.
Thats not accurate.
From the original article linked by the thread starter.
Burt Carney, an executive with the Association of Christian Schools International, said he's met with officials for the university system, and was told that there was no problem with the actual facts in a BJU physics textbook that was disallowed.
In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …"
In the case of the physics textbook at least, the actual material that is being taught about physics was apparently just fine. It was the Bible verses at the beginning of each chapter that caused this particular textbook to be rejected. In a private school, having Bible verses at the beginning of the textbook should be none of UC's business or concern.
-
Actually top 3 if you go by Academic Ranking of World Universities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Ranking_of_World_Universities) but I'm not going to nitpick.
From your own link, only one of several University of California colleges made the top 3, and that was Berkeley. Rather misleading to claim UC is a top 3 school world wide considering the figures below.
University of California, Berkeley 4 4 4 4 3
University of California, Davis 36 42 42 42 43
University of California, Irvine 44 55 55 44 45
University of California, Los Angeles 15 16 16 14 13
University of California, San Diego 14 13 13 13 14
University of California, San Francisco 13 17 17 18 18
University of California, Santa Barbara 26 35 35 35 35
University of California, Riverside
-
Read the article, if they proven to be qualified/proficient then their background learning process is irrelevant:
According to the article, that's not entirely accurate either.
Under the admissions guidelines to University of California colleges, in-state students must either score in the top two to three percent on standardized tests or complete a core curriculum of approved preparatory classes (called "a-g" classes) to be deemed eligible for entrance into the state university system.
The students have to score in the top 2 to 3 percent not just show qualification/proficient on their SAT's or complete a core curriculum of approved a-g classes. Classes aren't being approved for something as minor as Bible verses at the beginning of a chapter.
-
Easy with the pansy stuff, don't want go get a ban now do we? Anyways I'm a top not a bottom.
If you don't like ARWU (which is widely regarded as the best international ranking system) you can check out Times Higher Education. (http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/results/2007/overall_rankings/top_100_universities/) UC doesn't do as well there, but it's still on top as far as public education, and certainly far above your earlier remarks.
Regarded by whom? Your own link clearly states that the results given by ARWU can't be duplicated using the raw numbers.
Your own link says that the ARWU is full of toejam. I didn't provide that link. You did.
-
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, a liberal state has the best education......wahhhhhhhhhh!
:rofl
-
Thats not accurate.
From the original article linked by the thread starter.
In the case of the physics textbook at least, the actual material that is being taught about physics was apparently just fine. It was the Bible verses at the beginning of each chapter that caused this particular textbook to be rejected. In a private school, having Bible verses at the beginning of the textbook should be none of UC's business or concern.
"None so blind as they who would not see"
Good effort Elfie but they just do not want to see the bigotry here. I give up.
-
Regarded by whom? Your own link clearly states that the results given by ARWU can't be duplicated using the raw numbers.
Your own link says that the ARWU is full of poop. I didn't provide that link. You did.
:lol
-
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, a liberal state has the best education......wahhhhhhhhhh!
:rofl
Says who? No sources provided in this thread confirm that. :lol
-
"None so blind as they who would not see"
Good effort Elfie but they just do not want to see the bigotry here. I give up.
Why give up?
The article is pretty clear that the material within the text books intended to teach is CORRECT and acceptable to the university and that the text book WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IF it did NOT contain references to Christianity........ or "In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …" "
That is BIGOTRY.........
"Under the disputed policy, however, a-g classes based on books that mention God or the Bible don't count, effectively making a secular education a prerequisite for admission."
Right HERE.........
"Here's the very university that talks about academic freedom," Carney said. "It's very discriminating. They don't rule against Muslim or Hindu or Jewish (themes) or so forth, only those with a definite Christian theme."
IMHO there is no way around it, and those nattering away that the article doesn't say what it says are pretty much displaying IMHO their own bigotry............ OR they didn't actually bother to READ the article?
-
Why give up?
It's like beating my head against a brick wall, it just feels good when I stop. ;)
-
Says who? No sources provided in this thread confirm that. :lol
look it up yourself! :aok Matter of fact, maybe you could research the history of conservatism and liberalism in education and see what you find. Let me know.
:aok
-
Why give up?
The article is pretty clear that the material within the text books intended to teach is CORRECT and acceptable to the university and that the text book WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE IF it did NOT contain references to Christianity........ or "In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …" "
So why not remove the scripture?
I know... because the textbooks have a religious agenda that has NOTHING to do with the subject matter.
-
So why not remove the scripture?
I know... because the textbooks have a religious agenda that has NOTHING to do with the subject matter.
Why do they HAVE to remove the scripture? How exactly are those scripture PREVENTING a student from learning what they need to learn?
I take it you are from New Zealand?
It's a 1st Amendment issue here! We consider it a FREEDOM that MUST not be messed with !
Is that something you don't have in New Zealand? A 1st Amendment?
So are you arguing about something you do not understand?
-
So why not remove the scripture?
I know... because the textbooks have a religious agenda that has NOTHING to do with the subject matter.
The school is a private school that wishes to teach a Christian world view along with the appropriate core curriculums. They are well within their constitutional rights to do so under the 1st Amendment. The school does have a religious agenda many private schools do and there is nothing wrong with that.
-
look it up yourself! :aok Matter of fact, maybe you could research the history of conservatism and liberalism in education and see what you find. Let me know.
:aok
One other person claimed that as well, even gave bogus information to back it up. You make the claim and don't even attempt to back it up.
Which institutions provide the best education is a matter that is highly subjective. I would not consider a liberal education a *good* education simply because I am not a liberal. All of this really doesn't apply to this thread though, so I won't comment further. :)
-
It's like beating my head against a brick wall, it just feels good when I stop. ;)
:D
-
Why do they HAVE to remove the scripture? How exactly are those scripture PREVENTING a student from learning what they need to learn?
I take it you are from New Zealand?
It's a 1st Amendment issue here! We consider it a FREEDOM that MUST not be messed with !
Is that something you don't have in New Zealand? A 1st Amendment?
So are you arguing about something you do not understand?
Even I understand it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. Though I agree that the exam entry level does seem high (top 2-3%) there may be reasons for this. If the school wishes to teach from christian texts nobody is stopping them, they are merely stating that they'd like students to enter into university with a minimal standard of background preparation. The books this school uses do not meet that criteria.
All the school has to do is use the approved course material (something which I understand most schools in the USA have no issue with), they are still free to preach their religion in the school and this will have no bearing on the A-G requirements.
The reason other religion have not been targeted (at a guess) is most likely because those other religions are quite happy using the recommended course material and aren't insecure and arrogant enough to have to mention their deity ever other page.
-
Why do they HAVE to remove the scripture? How exactly are those scripture PREVENTING a student from learning what they need to learn?
I take it you are from New Zealand?
It's a 1st Amendment issue here! We consider it a FREEDOM that MUST not be messed with !
Is that something you don't have in New Zealand? A 1st Amendment?
So are you arguing about something you do not understand?
MT lives in Idaho but he only came recently from Kalifornia so we have to excuse him.
-
Even I understand it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. Though I agree that the exam entry level does seem high (top 2-3%) there may be reasons for this. If the school wishes to teach from christian texts nobody is stopping them, they are merely stating that they'd like students to enter into university with a minimal standard of background preparation. The books this school uses do not meet that criteria.
All the school has to do is use the approved course material (something which I understand most schools in the USA have no issue with), they are still free to preach their religion in the school and this will have no bearing on the A-G requirements.
The reason other religion have not been targeted (at a guess) is most likely because those other religions are quite happy using the recommended course material and aren't insecure and arrogant enough to have to mention their deity ever other page.
When the school itself says that if the bible verse was removed at the beginning of each chapter it would be acceptable, this leads us to conclude that the material IS NOT tainted with a religious agenda.
Now, if a private school wants to let it anyone who they want, they can. It is their school, they can do it how they please.
But a Public University shouldn't bias against these students when the material itself is in tact. Not to mention the past and clearly established anti christian tinge of this PUBLIC university.
Public is the key word here. If they want to take their university private, then they can. However they will suffer the loss of possibly hundreds of millions of dollars of public funding (lotta ofs).
What we see here is a group of fascists who want to instill their agenda (OK) on our dime (not OK).
-
The books this school uses do not meet that criteria.
The only textbook that is actually mentioned is the physics textbook.
Burt Carney, an executive with the Association of Christian Schools International, said he's met with officials for the university system, and was told that there was no problem with the actual facts in a BJU physics textbook that was disallowed.
In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …"
No one is mentioning their deity every other page, unless the chapters in physics textbooks are only 2 pages long.
If the school wishes to teach from christian texts nobody is stopping them, they are merely stating that they'd like students to enter into university with a minimal standard of background preparation.
Get this, apparently other private schools not in Kalifornia are using the same textbooks and those kids are not being denied admission.
This is very much a 1st Amendment issue for all religiously operated private schools.
-
MT lives in Idaho but he only came recently from Kalifornia so we have to excuse him.
:D
-
When the school itself says that if the bible verse was removed at the beginning of each chapter, this leads us to conclude that the material IS NOT tainted with a religious agenda.
The school itself admits that very thing.
Burt Carney, an executive with the Association of Christian Schools International, said he's met with officials for the university system, and was told that there was no problem with the actual facts in a BJU physics textbook that was disallowed.
In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …"
-
When the school itself says that if the bible verse was removed at the beginning of each chapter it would be acceptable, this leads us to conclude that the material IS NOT tainted with a religious agenda.
Agreed, but what I am reading says it is more than that, if you have links to where this is reported I'd like to read up. I'd also like to know the context of the verses, for example a verse relating to creation of the earth at the beginning of a geography text sends an interesting message, likewise a verse about adam and eve at the beginning of an evolution/biology text could viewed negatively.
-
Gents if you read the judges decision in the first hearing he has given the california high school grounds to sue for the complaint that out of state students are accepted while having used the same text books that the instate students are being disallowed admission over.
This leads to the question of UC dictating the content and cource work of classes and text books to instate private christian schools pre higher education K-12. The instate christian high school could not graduate students by california state law who were not fufilling california board of education requirements.
This has the facial apperance of stealth christian descrimination by UC when it's the california board of educations provence to certifie the high school in question ciriculum by law. UC is telling them that the state of california's standards in the case of this high school level christian oriented education is invalide due only to it being "theologicly christian" oriented and narrow of scope opposed to secular christianity taught as religious philosophy or liturature. UC has no lawfull authority to set standards for K-12 primary education.
But then this being california and christian hostile, the board of education probably looked the other way while "praying" UC could force the curriculum change by denighed applicant attrition.
-
One of the objectionable parts according to UC was a philosophical preamble in one of the textbooks which stated...and I paraphrase, and no this isn't what it said verbatim, but what I believe it meant:
"whatever findings science has theories about, we as Christians believe in creation by God. We should always remember this and place God above any scientific theory which is contradictory with God's word (in the search for truth.)"
UC is upset because of a philosophical preamble which is religious in nature, UC claiming this one preface makes invalid the rest of the textbook. They are saying the science is bad, just because of that.
If some of the textbooks began each chapter with some scripture written there, is that any different than having a poem, or famous quote? Seems like all it does is try to focus on Christianity, but how does that change the science? People are free to have inspiration. Many great scientists were Christians and actually did serious scientific research.
People are free to think what they want and it's not the business of a university to dictate that. E=Mc2 is pretty much agreed upon universally. The idea God created the universe and all in it is not universally agreed upon by scientists, but many do. It is valid for a Christian school to acknowledge what they believe in and what gives inspiration.
This looks to me like UC is exercising thought police tactics. If you deny someone entrance because they are a Christian and believe in creation, who have the audacity to preamble their textbooks with this belief, then that sure looks to me like suppression of religion by the state...unconstitutional.
Les
-
Agreed, but what I am reading says it is more than that, if you have links to where this is reported I'd like to read up. I'd also like to know the context of the verses, for example a verse relating to creation of the earth at the beginning of a geography text sends an interesting message, likewise a verse about adam and eve at the beginning of an evolution/biology text could viewed negatively.
I quoted directly from the original article.
-
This looks to me like UC is exercising thought police tactics. If you deny someone entrance because they are a Christian and believe in creation, who have the audacity to preamble their textbooks with this belief, then that sure looks to me like suppression of religion by the state...unconstitutional.
Don't you think it ironic that people who send the children to a school to be indoctrinated in a religion talk about 'thought police'.
From where I sit, prefacing the literature with something that effectively says 'we're teaching this because we have too but we don't believe it to be true' is - I dunno... out there with the creationist lunies.
But yeah I agree the university is making a mountain out of a molehill, however it may be a case of them drawing a line in the sand. If it starts with the textbooks prefaced with disclaimers like that then where will it end?
-
Don't you think it ironic that people who send the children to a school to be indoctrinated in a religion talk about 'thought police'.
How do we know Leslie sends his children to a private religious school? I don't believe he has stated either way. Looks like you are jumping to conclusions. :)
-
AND IMHO this is a form of DISCRIMINATION and intolerance!
Too late Wrang. You've been brainwashed already. Since "discrimination" means to note differences between things, I always used the word "prejudice" to describe what they mean by discrimination. I say we need more effort put forward to note the difference between things, not less. And I'm VERY much for intolerance in favor of right and against wrong.
-
oops
-
How do we know Leslie sends his children to a private religious school? I don't believe he has stated either way. Looks like you are jumping to conclusions. :)
I wasn't talking about him specifically. More the school we're discussing.
-
I wasn't talking about him specifically. More the school we're discussing.
Where does the school talk about thought police then?
-
Well Ok. I'm glad I read before I posted. :rofl I was about to say something I might regret. <G>
Les
-
Atheists say "In the beginning, there was NOTHING - Then, IT EXPLODED!"... Sounds kida far-fetched to me when you think about it that way...
-
Actually, there was an ultra dense mass which contained the entire universe- that exploded.
Kind of iffy, but by far no less than a Jewish zombie returning from the grave after having forgiving us all our sins, and telling us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
That actually sounds like it was somehow taken the wrong way, eating human flesh and drinking blood sounds like something Zombie Jesus should be doing, not the other way around...
Both sound far fetched, and I honestly think that modern day theoretical physics should be taught over the writings of delusional Hebrews that are what... 3,000-4000 years old?
-
Zombie Jesus.
Now *there's* a comic-book title!
-
Atheists say "In the beginning, there was NOTHING - Then, IT EXPLODED!"... Sounds kida far-fetched to me when you think about it that way...
It is far fetched. Where did you hear this theory of an "explosion?"
-
lol, you know.... this "Big Bang" theory these guys love!
-
I knew what you were getting at, and I regret setting you up for this. I'll retract it and just say without sarcasm and cynicism that there is no explosion in the big bang theory.
I'd like to make the point that too many times, people take a position on something they know little about, or have a misunderstanding of the facts, including the opinions or positions of others. It is not always their fault because the modern media is guilty of being lax on the facts, too.
-
I wasn't being serious, just funny... I guess I missed by a bit...
(Associated Press) - Mr No Name was arrested in the early hours of the morning on the charge of Attempted Humor on the Aces High II forum. The arresting officer feels that after a brief cool-down period for all involved, the charges will likely be dropped due to lack of substantial evidence. No farm animals were harmed during the course of this event.
<S>
-
I thought it was pretty funny.
Of course any theory that claims to know the origin of the universe is pretty silly. "in the beginning there was.. no wait.. before there was.. no wait.. "
Since it is impossible to know and a god, an eternal creator, is every bit as plausible as anything science has offered so far..
Why not at least mention it?
for me.. for science to say that it is not possible is to admit that science is constrained in ways that cripple it.
lazs
-
Which proves that you have no idea at all what science is.
-
Science is merely the quest to understand and, if at all possible, replicate what we see, hear and otherwise experience in this world and beyond. It works in hard data. Conjecture, theory if you will, where it is used is backed by hard data as much as possible
-
Which proves that you have no idea at all what science is.
He has at least as much an idea of what science is as does any "scientist" who claims there is no god.
-
Actually, there was an ultra dense mass which contained the entire universe- that exploded.
Kind of iffy, but by far no less than a Jewish zombie returning from the grave after having forgiving us all our sins, and telling us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
That actually sounds like it was somehow taken the wrong way, eating human flesh and drinking blood sounds like something Zombie Jesus should be doing, not the other way around...
Both sound far fetched, and I honestly think that modern day theoretical physics should be taught over the writings of delusional Hebrews that are what... 3,000-4000 years old?
I've never understood the need to ridicule religion and those who believe with comments like.....the writings of delusional Hebrews.......loony creationists.....or calling my Savior a *zombie*.
You won't ever see me forcing my beliefs on any of you nor will you see me poking fun at your beliefs. This post I quoted in particular shows the same prejudice against Christianity that UC is showing by disallowing textbooks for merely having Bible verses at the beginning of chapters.
-
"Science is merely the quest to understand and, if at all possible, replicate what we see, hear and otherwise experience in this world and beyond. It works in hard data. Conjecture, theory if you will, where it is used is backed by hard data as much as possible"
SD.. you realize that was a rationalization and... gibberish.
Science is a crippled art form.
lazs
-
I've never understood the need to ridicule religion and those who believe with comments like.....the writings of delusional Hebrews.......loony creationists.....or calling my Savior a *zombie*.
I've never understood why people get so insulted by a simple joke.
-
I've never understood the need to ridicule religion and those who believe with comments like.....the writings of delusional Hebrews.......loony creationists.....or calling my Savior a *zombie*.
You won't ever see me forcing my beliefs on any of you nor will you see me poking fun at your beliefs. This post I quoted in particular shows the same prejudice against Christianity that UC is showing by disallowing textbooks for merely having Bible verses at the beginning of chapters.
To be honest (no reflection on you btw) I find the most disrespectful of religions tends to be christians - especially when it comes to religions such as buddhism and hinduism.
The whole zombie thing I think is an attempt to put perspective on how some people view christianity. Some people see it no different to stories of greek and roman gods, santa, the easter bunny etc. Now I know some christians get very very upset at this comparison, but I must say I've come across some christians who do not see the bible word for word and agree, but are still able to follow their faith without going nuts over all the 'fantasy' parts. It's not just atheists by the way, if you talk to someone not exposed to christianity such as someone SE Asia, and talk about the beliefs around christs activities they think it is ridiculous as well.
-
I've never understood why people get so insulted by a simple joke.
You wanna see people get really indignant try telling joke with the "N" word. It's not hard for me to understand, pretty easy actually.
-
To be honest (no reflection on you btw) I find the most disrespectful of religions tends to be christians - especially when it comes to religions such as buddhism and hinduism.
The whole zombie thing I think is an attempt to put perspective on how some people view christianity. Some people see it no different to stories of greek and roman gods, santa, the easter bunny etc. Now I know some christians get very very upset at this comparison, but I must say I've come across some christians who do not see the bible word for word and agree, but are still able to follow their faith without going nuts over all the 'fantasy' parts. It's not just atheists by the way, if you talk to someone not exposed to christianity such as someone SE Asia, and talk about the beliefs around christs activities they think it is ridiculous as well.
You have to realize Vulcan, that Atheism isn't a lack of faith. Atheists have just as much faith that they are right than the most religious Christians, Hindi, Muslims... Atheism itself is a religion.
-
I've never understood why people get so insulted by a simple joke.
I can understand jokes....except you weren't telling a joke......jokes have punch lines and there is no punch line in your post, only bigotry. Like I said, you won't see me doing the same to your beliefs.
*edit* I'm not insulted by your post, I just don't and never have, understood the need to poke fun at someone else's beliefs.
-
To be honest (no reflection on you btw) I find the most disrespectful of religions tends to be christians -
I agree, some are very disrespectful of others beliefs. Yet, we can find that same kind of disrespect in any group of people towards beliefs that are not their own.
-
I can understand jokes....except you weren't telling a joke......jokes have punch lines and there is no punch line in your post, only bigotry. Like I said, you won't see me doing the same to your beliefs.
I was pointing out how silly it looks when you take it and just look at it in a general picture, as someone else described. Just as Mr. No Name did with his big bang thing in the post before. Of course, I pushed it further in a more manipulative way in an attempt to make it more fun to read, I guess some people don't like that though.*edit* I'm not insulted by your post, I just don't and never have, understood the need to poke fun at someone else's beliefs.
I think it's essential to find humor in our selves and in others, in good fun. I've never seen any harm in it.
-
Sure, if the humor is backed up with some semblance of guts it is a good thing. I have a friend who was arrested for flipping the bird to someone driving on the highway. He knew this person and was having an ongoing squabble with him. That person called the cops and my friend was arrested (flipping the bird is an arrest able offense here.)
Now I gotta say, my friend has a great sense of humor. He was the only white guy in jail with about 20 black men. One of them asked him what he was in for. He replied he shot the bird at someone. The black guy thought my friend actually shot a bird and asked him if he shot someone's parrot. When my friend said no, you don't understand, this is what I did...you know, flipped someone off. He demonstrated the gesture and everyone laughed so hard they got along ok during his short stay there. He told them jokes, some of which were racial, but the way he told them had everyone laughing so hard the jailer came in and told them to be quiet...this is jail, you're not supposed to laugh in here. To summarize, the blacks told their versions of the same kind of jokes and no one took offense. It was a mutually agreeable situation that no one was going to get upset.
That is the definition of good humor. Ridicule does not have anything to do with humor. Probably the best way to measure humor is to see if what you say to another person face to face makes them laugh. Of course the internet doesn't offer the luxury of face to face discourse. Best rule of thumb is to not post anything you wouldn't say to a 350 lb. linebacker or a Mafia don and you should be alright.
Les
-
You have to realize Vulcan, that Atheism isn't a lack of faith. Atheists have just as much faith that they are right than the most religious Christians, Hindi, Muslims... Atheism itself is a religion.
Faith in what? Atheism is not a religion, I don't believe in santa, the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny either. Just because I don't believe in yet another supernatural being does not make it a religion. it's just another wierd aspect of fundamentalist christians.
-
It is immoral to lie to children..If YOU want your child to be taught nonsense in class,that is your right.
As long as joe taxpayer doesn't have to foot this bill...
and can you keep this stupid nonsense..how shall i put it ?(as meekly & mildly as i can)...
To yourselves ?
-
You have to realize Vulcan, that Atheism isn't a lack of faith. Atheists have just as much faith that they are right than the most religious Christians, Hindi, Muslims... Atheism itself is a religion.
Nothing gets an Atheist riled up faster than accusing them of be religious. Of course Atheism has been ruled a religion by a US court.
-
Nothing gets an Atheist riled up faster than accusing them of be religious. Of course Atheism has been ruled a religion by a US court.
Yeah well US courts are so level headed and all :)
It doesn't get me riled up, it just underscores the underlying issues some christians have with reality. ie... the lack of believing in a water walking jewish zombie being a religion. Plus I've received no instruction in atheism (whilst I received a reasonable amount of instruction in christianity), I do not follow an atheist doctrine (is there even one?), and I don't attend organized atheist meetings. So to me atheism being called a religion is just another example of not a christian not being able to see the forest for the trees, and they like to bring out the religion card as part of a typical christian play on words to further their own needs (especially when you see christians pull out the commie card on atheists - which is funny because I'm fairly capitalistic :) ).
BTW there is an atheist religion, do you know what it is? (perhaps it's more agnostic)
-
The day I take the People's Communistic State of China's rankings of world colleges seriously, is the day I voluntarily move to San Francisco.
If we keep borrowing from the Chinese you may have to listen to them one day. Better start saving San Francisco is expensive I hear.
-
You have to realize Vulcan, that Atheism isn't a lack of faith. Atheists have just as much faith that they are right than the most religious Christians, Hindi, Muslims... Atheism itself is a religion.
i don't think there is much you can do with statements like this..except underline them.
-
It is immoral to lie to children..If YOU want your child to be taught nonsense in class,that is your right.
I agree, it is immoral to lie to children. Since science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a deity, those who believe in a God(s) out of faith nor those who disbelieve (atheists, agnostics) can reasonably be said to be lying to children. Each group of people is teaching children what they believe to be correct.
-
the lack of believing in a water walking jewish zombie being a religion.
You could have worded that something like this.......the lack of believing in a water walking Jewish person who was supposedly raised from the dead........anything along that order would be respectful of someone else's beliefs. The way you worded it, is still ridicule.....
With that said, I believe I'll follow AKIron's example and stop beating my head against the brick wall.... :D
-
A zombie is a zombie. ;)
-
I think Jesus walked on water long before he was crucified. So the whole zombie issue is moot
-
Indeed this is true.
He reportedly walked on water in the middle of a storm on the sea of Galilee.
Here's an interesting article that provides an alternative explanation for what might have occurred.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12152740/
It is also possible that in the grand old tradition of fishermen, they got so toasted on their fishing trip they thought he was walking on water when he was actually on the shoreline and they were a lot closer to shore than they thought. :lol