-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christian Schools Sue State University
- Thread starter jcrawford
- Start date
ACSI was well aware of what the UC requirements for acceptance are. The schools in question failed to meet UC requirements. Period, end of story. The problem is that ACSI told the schools the accredited that the courses met UC requirements, and now ACSI is cought holding the proverbial bag, because they were mistaken.
Their suit against the UC system is without merit.
Their suit against the UC system is without merit.
You don't know what you are talking about since the plaintiffs will show the court that their science courses and lab work are on a par with all other state certified and approved high schools.
The court will decide whether a state university can use Darwinst racial theories about human origins in setting standards which discriminate against students of a particular religious background.
You have no idea what courses in science these students have taken and are prejudging the case without any evidence. Since the students have graduated from state certified schools whose science courses and labwork are academically required and approved by their regents, it is safe to assume that these students have studied and passed 2, if not 3 of the required science courses.
The UC policy of discrediting creationist teachings in highschools must be new, otherwise ACSI would have sued earlier. The reason UC is taking such drastic steps to discredit creationist teachings now is that ever since 2004 when Lubenow published his charges of scientific racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories and models of African Eve's people evolving from non-human African primates, more and more creationists are charging neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution as being inherently racist.
"You don't know what you are talking about since the plaintiffs will show the court that their science courses and lab work are on a par with all other state certified and approved high schools."
Apparently not.
The school is supposed to teach biology. They teach something else and try and call it biology. The schools made the choice to teach something other than science in their science courses. They knew the possible consequences. The students and parents chose to send the kids to these schools. They should have been aware of the consequences of attending a school which does not follow the requirements of the state university system for admissions. They should take responsibility for their choices. You make your bed, you must then lie in it.
"The court will decide whether a state university can use Darwinst racial theories about human origins in setting standards which discriminate against students of a particular religious background."
The only discrimination here is against poor scholarship. The schools fail to meet the minimum standards for biology. Tough. They made choices. If they want their biology courses to be accepted then they should teach biology, not a lie dressed up as a religious viewpoint. They have the right to teach the kids a lie but the university system has the right to not certify schools that do so.
And remember, even with the poor choices of the schools, the parents and the students, there are other ways for the kids to be admitted to the university system. They happen to have removed the easiest and most common path from their realm of possibilities through their choices.
I am guessing that you did not even read fully through the complaint to which you posted the link since these choices are fully spelled out. When reading it, I had a hard time believing that the lawyer who wrote it actually took the case. I sure hope he has something stronger than what was oulined in the complaint or else we will be having the court's time and money wasted on another frivolous lawsuit where the plantiffs attempt to make someone else pay for their own choices.
"The UC policy of discrediting creationist teachings in highschools must be new, otherwise ACSI would have sued earlier. The reason UC is taking such drastic steps to discredit creationist teachings now is that ever since 2004 when Lubenow published his charges of scientific racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories and models of African Eve's people evolving from non-human African primates, more and more creationists are charging neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution as being inherently racist."
I guess you have some information that shows a direct causal connection here between Lub's waste of a good tree and the university system's decisions.
No?
Apparently not.
The school is supposed to teach biology. They teach something else and try and call it biology. The schools made the choice to teach something other than science in their science courses. They knew the possible consequences. The students and parents chose to send the kids to these schools. They should have been aware of the consequences of attending a school which does not follow the requirements of the state university system for admissions. They should take responsibility for their choices. You make your bed, you must then lie in it.
"The court will decide whether a state university can use Darwinst racial theories about human origins in setting standards which discriminate against students of a particular religious background."
The only discrimination here is against poor scholarship. The schools fail to meet the minimum standards for biology. Tough. They made choices. If they want their biology courses to be accepted then they should teach biology, not a lie dressed up as a religious viewpoint. They have the right to teach the kids a lie but the university system has the right to not certify schools that do so.
And remember, even with the poor choices of the schools, the parents and the students, there are other ways for the kids to be admitted to the university system. They happen to have removed the easiest and most common path from their realm of possibilities through their choices.
I am guessing that you did not even read fully through the complaint to which you posted the link since these choices are fully spelled out. When reading it, I had a hard time believing that the lawyer who wrote it actually took the case. I sure hope he has something stronger than what was oulined in the complaint or else we will be having the court's time and money wasted on another frivolous lawsuit where the plantiffs attempt to make someone else pay for their own choices.
"The UC policy of discrediting creationist teachings in highschools must be new, otherwise ACSI would have sued earlier. The reason UC is taking such drastic steps to discredit creationist teachings now is that ever since 2004 when Lubenow published his charges of scientific racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories and models of African Eve's people evolving from non-human African primates, more and more creationists are charging neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution as being inherently racist."
I guess you have some information that shows a direct causal connection here between Lub's waste of a good tree and the university system's decisions.
No?
Lubenow's claims are a smokescreen. He's doing the same thing that the church did when it was challenged that the earth was round, or that the earth is not the center fo the universe and goes around the sun.
If we're to abandon teaching anything because it might appear racist, we'd have to abandon teaching Mendel's genetics theories, because they teach that some genetic traits are "better" than others in some cases. We'd have to delete teaching of slavery in history, because slavery is racist. We'd have to delete teachings on the holocaust, because the final solution was racist. We'd have to delete any teachings about the establishment of Israel after ww2, because its founding was due to racism.
If we're to abandon teaching anything because it might appear racist, we'd have to abandon teaching Mendel's genetics theories, because they teach that some genetic traits are "better" than others in some cases. We'd have to delete teaching of slavery in history, because slavery is racist. We'd have to delete teachings on the holocaust, because the final solution was racist. We'd have to delete any teachings about the establishment of Israel after ww2, because its founding was due to racism.
Why can't we as "Christians" give support to those Christians that are being persecuted here in the United States of America?
It is a shame that they march on with the noise of "Christians" clamoring AGAINST them.
Let them know that I support them. I support their 1st Amendment right to practice their religious (& mine) beliefs.
To say that government schools can dictate what Christians must believe in order to attend their schools is unconstitutional. (An expression of my First Amendment right!)
It is a shame that they march on with the noise of "Christians" clamoring AGAINST them.
Let them know that I support them. I support their 1st Amendment right to practice their religious (& mine) beliefs.
To say that government schools can dictate what Christians must believe in order to attend their schools is unconstitutional. (An expression of my First Amendment right!)
Yes. All any highschool has to do to justify not teaching Darwinism is to point out that neo-Darwinist academic theories, teachings and admission practices are a form of scientific racism according to Lubenow in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention." </font>[/QUOTE]So, just to be sure, you cannot show a direct causal connection, right? I am sure that if you could have backed up your previous statement -- let's see ... you said "The reason UC is taking such drastic steps to discredit creationist teachings now is that ever since 2004 when Lubenow published his charges of scientific racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories and models of African Eve's people evolving from non-human African primates, more and more creationists are charging neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution as being inherently racist." -- then you would have supported that claim rather than simply repeat the claim. But since you can only repeat yourself I take that to mean that you cannot show the direct link that you claimed.
Again, they are not being persecuted. They are not being discriminated against. They are not having their freedom to worship as they please trampled upon. They are not being told what to believe.
What is happening is that these students and their parents are unwilling to take responsibility for their own choices. They made a conscious decision to attend a school where something other than biology was being taught and being called biology. The university system has standards that must be met if you wish to apply based on your grades. Part of the standard is a science standard. These schools chose to teach something that was not science in their science class. It fails to meet the standard. The kids can no longer apply to the university system based on their grades.
It is important to remember that these kids are not being denied admission. They are free to take one of the other admission paths. But since the choice was made to attend schools which are not certified, they cannot get in on their grades.
I guess that personal responsibility is just something that some people talk about except when they are the ones being asked to take responsibility for their actions. Then it is suddenly someone else's fault.
No one is being told how to practice their religion or what they can or cannot believe. What they are being told is that if you wish to take credit for studying biology, you must have really taken biology and not a pack of lies that some try and pass off as a religious viewpoint. Just because you claim religious discrimination does not make it true and it does not mean that you suddenly do not have to live up to the standards to which others are held.
These parents and kids need to take responsibility for thier choices.
These parents and kids need to take responsibility for thier choices.
mcdirector
Active Member
Once again -- there is nothing wrong scientifically with those textbooks -- they are sound -- none of them that I have seen say the world is flat! Or are in any other way "backwards." The same material is covered as in secular textbooks (except for mentions of God and creation). When I used a Bob Jones book for an earth science course, I taught evolution, the gap theory, creationism (mmmmm I'm missing something) AND everything else I'd taught in earth science in public school. It was not my favorite textbook -- not because of the content, but because it was rather flat itself in writing.
Also remember that any teacher is free to insert anything in class he/she wants. The textbook is only a part of class. Secular texts could be used and creation still be taught. I have taught science with NO textbooks.
One reason for putting a child in a Christian school is that God can be mentioned every/ anywhere all day long. God's role in all parts of our lives/nature/politics can be discussed and examined. The Bible can be brought out at any time for a multitude of questions.
Personally, part of my goal is to help students learn to live noncompartmentalized lifes, and to realize that everything is interconnected and intertwined. I want to help them examine the world through a biblical worldview.
We use some of these texts at my school and students have been accepted into several state systems into the first rung schools -- my sons are among those accepted to fine schools. Many have gone on to graduate schools. My youngest is a math/physics major and has already been accepted into several graduate programs for next year. Their education was not lacking in anyway.
Also remember that any teacher is free to insert anything in class he/she wants. The textbook is only a part of class. Secular texts could be used and creation still be taught. I have taught science with NO textbooks.
One reason for putting a child in a Christian school is that God can be mentioned every/ anywhere all day long. God's role in all parts of our lives/nature/politics can be discussed and examined. The Bible can be brought out at any time for a multitude of questions.
Personally, part of my goal is to help students learn to live noncompartmentalized lifes, and to realize that everything is interconnected and intertwined. I want to help them examine the world through a biblical worldview.
We use some of these texts at my school and students have been accepted into several state systems into the first rung schools -- my sons are among those accepted to fine schools. Many have gone on to graduate schools. My youngest is a math/physics major and has already been accepted into several graduate programs for next year. Their education was not lacking in anyway.
If the biology books are mentioning any form of young earth creationism or ID then they most certainly are not sound. There are not at this time any scientifically respectable theories to be offerred by these groups. To include them in a science course is to hopelessly confuse science and pseudoscience.
Fortunately, BJU press makes this easy for us. You can go straight to their webstite and read the actual biology text through the end of the first chapter. What becomes undeniable is that they are deliberately NOT presenting biology but something else. They teach "kinds" for which there is no scienctific support or even a definition of what the various "kinds" are. They deny the overwhelming eidence for common descent. In the middle of an introductory biology chapter, they take a shot at Joseph Smith for some strange reason. They continuously try and undermine the lynchpin of modern biology, evolution. In short, they explicitly state they anything which contradicts their own interpretation of the Bible can be rejected out of hand without even considering the merits. I guess they fail to consider that others have a different interpretation of some of these things and that they might be wrong.
There may be parts of biology that they do cover well. Smart kids may go through the program and not be intellectually crippled. They may even get into good schools. But they are not teaching biology and the university system has the right to insist that their prospective students take an actual science course or two to get in and to insist that these courses not spend their time trying to undermine the core of the subject.
Fortunately, BJU press makes this easy for us. You can go straight to their webstite and read the actual biology text through the end of the first chapter. What becomes undeniable is that they are deliberately NOT presenting biology but something else. They teach "kinds" for which there is no scienctific support or even a definition of what the various "kinds" are. They deny the overwhelming eidence for common descent. In the middle of an introductory biology chapter, they take a shot at Joseph Smith for some strange reason. They continuously try and undermine the lynchpin of modern biology, evolution. In short, they explicitly state they anything which contradicts their own interpretation of the Bible can be rejected out of hand without even considering the merits. I guess they fail to consider that others have a different interpretation of some of these things and that they might be wrong.
There may be parts of biology that they do cover well. Smart kids may go through the program and not be intellectually crippled. They may even get into good schools. But they are not teaching biology and the university system has the right to insist that their prospective students take an actual science course or two to get in and to insist that these courses not spend their time trying to undermine the core of the subject.
JC & MC,
Next we will be asked to bow down to the Great Monkey god, or else be called what?
No science has shown that God did not create the Heavens and the Earth.
I still practice my CONSTITUTIONAL right to believe that God is GOD!
Hypothesis will not change my belief in God. We have allowed too many wild ideas become a barrier to Truth.
I am tired of those that attack believers and ridicule their belief. I am tired of the discrimination. I am tired of being asked to worship a fake god: "the Piltdown Man god".
I will support these young men and women as they fight a CORRUPT system.
IMHO
Next we will be asked to bow down to the Great Monkey god, or else be called what?
No science has shown that God did not create the Heavens and the Earth.
I still practice my CONSTITUTIONAL right to believe that God is GOD!
Hypothesis will not change my belief in God. We have allowed too many wild ideas become a barrier to Truth.
I am tired of those that attack believers and ridicule their belief. I am tired of the discrimination. I am tired of being asked to worship a fake god: "the Piltdown Man god".
I will support these young men and women as they fight a CORRUPT system.
IMHO
This isn't an issue of persecution. It's an issue of whether they met the UC standards or not. Actually, this specific issue isn't even that. This issue involves whether ACSI believed that their standards met the UC requirement or not. If the subject were math, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But since the subject is evolution, it all of a sudden becomes a contrived issue of persecution.
So do I. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. The graduates of said schools are still able to have the classes in question recognized by a multitude of other colleges, public and private. Additionally, the graduates are still welcome in the UC system. However, they will need to take additional classes to make up for the classes that did not meet the UC standards.
They're not. They requiring that the graduates meet set standards. What if a Christian school decided that the kids should not take any math past Algebra1, should the UC system be forbidden from requiring the kids to take additional math classes? The UC system is not dictating beliefs. They're dictating requisite standards. Big difference.