|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Is about a lawsuit brought by students that are trying to substitute an alternate course of their choosing for one required by the university for admission. The university position is clear: quote: That's the defense attorneys spin on it, which may or may not be the case. Its a good defensive tactic, however, we have no idea if that is really the case. What we know, according to the article, is that the curricula was not honored, even though the Introduction to Buddhism, which is religious in nature, was allowed. Why is one accepted but the other isn't?
Either take the required courses like everyone else or take the SAT on the subject material. If they cannot pass the SAT on the subject material then there is no issue eh? If they can pass the SAT on the subject material then there is no issue eh? This is what every home schooled child is up against too. That would be the quickest way to sweep it under the carpet, but that isn't why the lawsuit was filed. The suit comes from a discrimination clause where the school allegedly placed preferential treatment depending on content, rather than actual skills to write a well-documented and articulate thesis. Since I don't know all the circumstances in the case, I can't say with certainty that the students or the school is in the wrong. What I can say with certainty is that there is a culture war and that universities across America are dominated by those of a liberal persuasion.
It is the role of the school teaching the course to get it accredited with the universities to count for admission requirements. It is not the role of students trying to use a non-accredited course in place of an accredited course to change admission standards. According to the plaintiffs the admission standards is just being used as an escape clause, when in fact, others have been accepted with a similar thesis, but the others have been excluded.
I would expect that if the requirement was to take an accredited course in american history, and a student took a course titled "The Role of Thomas Jefferson in American History" that it would NOT meet that requirement, even though Jefferson had a bigger role in american history than christianity. Why wouldn't the role of Thomas Jefferson be admissible? Its perfectly applicable.
There goes the loony right trying to re-write history and academic standards ... and push a political religious agenda. Or there goes a loony left trying to rewrite history and academic standards, because its unquestionable that Judeo-Christian ideals have played a central role in the shaping of American politics, and thereby extension, played a central role in America's early history. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Or there goes a loony left trying to rewrite history and academic standards, because its unquestionable that Judeo-Christian ideals have played a central role in the shaping of American politics, and thereby extension, played a central role in America's early history. Really? I find it highly questionable. As far as I can tell "Judeo-Christian ideals" (as though you could wrap Judaism and Christianity up into the same tradition - laughable) have been a set of shackles we, as a nation, have been struggling to throw off. It was the Judeo-Christian ideal of rule by kings that many fled here to escape, after all. So, you tell me who's trying to rewrite history, and leveraging spurious tort suits against public institutions in order to do so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What we know, according to the article, is that the curricula was not honored, even though the Introduction to Buddhism, which is religious in nature, was allowed. Why is one accepted but the other isn't? Because intro to Buddhism is not a history course, nor does it presume to replace a history course that is on the required list for admission to the university. What it DOES show is diversity in OTHER curricula interests. A university sets minimum requirements for history math science etc and then has other criteria to evaluate diversity of interests. I used to interview students for admission to my alma mater (Duke) and the issue of diversity was high on choosing between students once the REQUIRED standards had been met, but it did not replace the required standards. The university response that the students can take the SAT in the subject shows they are talking about a required standard and not a diversity one.
That would be the quickest way to sweep it under the carpet, but that isn't why the lawsuit was filed. The suit comes from a discrimination clause where the school allegedly placed preferential treatment depending on content, rather than actual skills to write a well-documented and articulate thesis. Since I don't know all the circumstances in the case, I can't say with certainty that the students or the school is in the wrong. But that doesn't stop you from making unwarranted assertions. The SAT's only apply for required courses: taking them is like taking the GED exam -- it shows you have minimum proficiency in the required material to meet the university requirements. General Educational Development - Wikipedia
Why wouldn't the role of Thomas Jefferson be admissible? Its perfectly applicable. Because it is not ALL of american history, so this is not enough to meet a requirement to have a background in american history.
because its unquestionable that Judeo-Christian ideals have played a central role in the shaping of American politics,... Unquestionable? Central? Show me where democracy, equality, liberty and freedom are developed from Judeo-Christian ideals. The things that differentiate american politics from the theocratic or the king\subject politics of pre-revolution america and from the politics of other countries is what defines american politics. Show me how these Judeo-Christian ideals form the difference between america and other countries. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What does the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murietta teach?
http://www.cccsmurrieta.com/secondary/aboutus.asp
quote: Warrior??? What does that have to do with education? Sounds like they are being prepared more for {battle with} than for {understanding of} the world. Isn't that just like what Islamic schools are pictured as doing in the middle east? Looking through their curricula I saw a lot of qualifiers "for christ\ian" Doing a google on some of the texts American Republic for Christian SchoolsPublisher: Bob Jones University Press (1988) - 2nd edition (June 2000) Amazon.com Says nothing about the book (no reviews either), but Special Voucher Report -- With God On Their Side ... -- Rethinking Schools Online reviewed this and several other christian "textbooks" with these comments:
quote: Cherry picking history to provide only a partial view, one full of distortions, lies of omission, misrepresentations and reactionary right wing propaganda, is not providing an education. There is a culture war going on and the {invaders\instigators\perpetuators} are fundamentalist christian fanatics.
This is not education, it is indoctrination. Gettem while their young eh? And you think this should be given credit for university admission? It would serve the school right if they lost their basic accreditation due to review of their material in the trial. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Even the cases where they defend the civil liberties of Christians ? I'm not aware that even conservative Christians are opposed to civil liberties to that extent. It's just non-Christians having civil liberties that they seem object to. Which isn't very Christian of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From San Fransisco Chronicle
Culture war pits UC vs. Christian way of teaching Religious schools challenge admission standards in court quote: They'll teach science after the mythology and then only when they have to eh? What a great way to get an education. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You mean like the Churches that weren't "bullied" by the secular standards regarding protecting pedophiles, wife beaters, and racists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Can't belive you forgot the big one: Jerry Falwell was represented by the ACLU, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Here are some secular standards on pedophilia, as taken from Wiki.
Some media sources have noted that when placed in perspective, the documented cases in the Catholic Church are much lower than incidents of child sexual abuse in the public school system. For the latter, the problem is over three times higher (up to 5% of American teachers, versus estimates of 0.2%[7] and 1.5% of Catholic priests), and only an estimated 1% of sexually abusive teachers have faced the loss of their license since most are merely moved to other districts. The police are rarely notified.[8] I have no idea what your racism and wife-beating comments refer to. Last I checked the Catholic clergy have no wives to beat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Can't belive you forgot the big one: Jerry Falwell was represented by the ACLU, too. I didn't know that. Funny how all these guys shit-talk the ACLU, but when the ACLU stands up to defend them, all of a sudden, all those lofty principles go right out the window.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yeah. So what? The last time I checked, "everybody does it" is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing. Also, the last time I checked, aren't priests and the Catholic Church supposed to be moral leaders, above and beyond the rest of us? Don't they swear an oath or something? I mean, come on. Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, ana, let alone not pedophiles! They are also supposed to be men of God, which would seem to me to preclude predatory sexual coersion of little boys.
quote: Edited to fix confusing quote attribution! You wrote:
I am very proud of the churches who are not bullied by secular standards, And I replied:
You mean like the Churches that weren't "bullied" by the secular standards regarding protecting pedophiles, wife beaters, and racists? I was making a more general comment about what religions, including Catholocism condone and encourage that are outside of "secular standards". For example, for quite a long time, abuse of a woman by her husband was not condoned by "secular standards", yet many churches, when abused women came in search of help, were basically told that the abuse was her fault for not pleasing her husband and that she had no choice but to try to make it work. Another example is the complicity of the Catholic Church/Vatican to Hitler and it's endorsement of Nazi Germany. The point I was making was that "secular standards" have trended towards the more humane and less persecutorial over the centuries, and the various influential religions have resisted such change and generally have to be forced to stop discriminating or otherwise oppressing certain groups that the rest of the modern world embraced decades before. Edited by nator, : to fix confusing quotes. Sorry! 'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
anastasia quotes wiki writes: Some media sources have noted that when placed in perspective, the documented cases in the Catholic Church are much lower than incidents of child sexual abuse in the public school system. For the latter, the problem is over three times higher (up to 5% of American teachers, versus estimates of 0.2%[7] and 1.5% of Catholic priests), and only an estimated 1% of sexually abusive teachers have faced the loss of their license since most are merely moved to other districts. The police are rarely notified.[8] For openers, could you provide a link to this material on Wiki? Material on Wikipedia, especially when involving contemporary social controversies, requires close scrutiny given the open public edits allowed there. And I'd like very much to see the context and footnoted references. For example, I find this sentence particularly curious:
quote: Here the writer contrasts "documented cases in the Catholic Church" vs. "incidents of child sexual abuse in the public school system." On the one hand, the writer contemplates only "documented cases" in the Catholic Church, and, on the other, refers to "child sexual abuse in the public school system" as though that number were a measure as objective as a ruled line. While this does suggest the writer believes the school systems do a better job of detecting the abuse, since their statistics can be stated without qualifiers, the mixed measures are suspect. Further, I'd like to know how many of the public school cases involve the seduction of teenage victims vs. the more classic pedophilic cases of assaults on preadolescents. I condemn both--but the seduction of a 17-year-old does differ from the forcible sodomizing of a 7-year-old in a number of ways. It seems to me that sexual abuse in the public schools is much more likely to be reported: the parents do not have a subordinate religious relationship with the teachers, and most states work hard both to deter and detect such abuse. No doubt some principals, superintendents, and school boards seek to hush up scandal, but I don't see how one could argue their incentives to do so are anywhere as strong as those in the Church, where an accuser must get past the abuser's role as a representative of God, and those to whom the abuse is reported are--as recent history has shown--highly concerned with the interests of the Church they also represent. So I am very skeptical that Church-related cases of abuse are reported as frequently as those in the public schools. Your excerpt seems to assume this is the case, and I'd like to know what evidence supports the assumption. A link to your excerpt would be a good start. Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: The last time I checked, "everybody does it" is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing. Of course not. The point is, the reason why the church scandal is seen as such a big deal, is precisely because people expect better of christianity, and not because the issue itself is unusual. The Catholic church did not 'endorse Nazi Germany'. It maintianed a neutral stance as opposed to complicity with Communism. Pius XII himself harbored Jews in the Vatican.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Omni, I am not good at providing links. A quick search of 'Catholic pedophilia' should bring you to the Wiki entry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ana, it takes at most 3 whole seconds for you to copy and paste the url. It takes significantly longer than that for the rest of us to hunt down what you referenced. It's not the law that you have to provide a link when you reference or quote something. It is, however, a common courtesy so that the rest of us don't have do the work you've already done.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024