Score One For the Good Guys

Federal judge in Los Angeles issues summary judgement in a lawsuit against the University of California. The suit was filed by Calvary Chapel Christian School. They claimed that the University's rejection of their courses amounted to a violation of their students first amendment rights under the free exercise clause. Several courses were excluded such as " Christianity's Influence on America" supposedly a college prepatory U.S. history class.

For instance, a UC professor who reviewed Calvary's proposed Christianity's Influence on America class said the course used a textbook that "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events," "attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action," and "contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women and non-Christian religious groups."

Also rejected was a biology course. From the introduction to the textbook used in the class:

Biology for Christian Schools is a textbook for Bible-believing high-school students. Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them.

Wait the facts of biology change based on whether you are a Bible believing Christian or not? The authors of the textbook betray themselves in the very first paragraph of the introduction. If the information presented in the book were true then it would apply to everyone. More:

The people who prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second. Paul exhorts Christians to live to live in such a way that "in all things [Jesus Christ] might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18). To the best of the authors' knowlege, the conclusions drawn from observable facts and presented in this book agree with scriptures. If ... at any point God's Word is not put first, the authors apologize.

Wow. Theres not much I can say to make them look anymore rediculous, so i'll let them speak for themselves.

Some of the conclusions a Christian must reach differ from those expressed by secular sources.

No. This is disgusting from a "science" book. This supposed science class runs completely in opposition to what science is supposed to be. In science you should take the facts and let them lead you to a conclusion, some Christians (i.e. intelligent design creationists) take a conclusion and try to manipulate the facts to fit their conclusion. These clowns toss the facts out completely and assert their conclusion.

The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a "scientific" explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on "supposed science." If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.

Translation: "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALA."

Lets see what Robert Tyler, attorney for the plaintiffs, has to say.

Tyler said he fears schools will become afraid to teach from a Christian perspective.

"We're worried in the long term, Christian education is going to be continually watered down in order to satisfy the UC school system," he said.

You mean they can't lie to their children anymore? Dear god what next? Actual facts in science class?

As a student who regularly gets screwed over by the UC adminstraion (hooray for tuition hikes) I can sympathize with Mr. Tyler. Just kidding this "education" they provide is such a huge joke; I'm forced to take the side of the UC administration... I feel so dirty.

Check out missingthepoint for more detailed legal analysis. Permalink!

Christians Demand Removal of Ten Commanments

Oh wait, "satanic" ten commandments.

Wingnutdaily brings us the story of a Christian group called The Resistance, and their crusade to take down the Georgia Guidestones. Browsing the website of The Resistance reveals them to be a kooky mix of 9/11 truth, new world order conspiracy crap, and Christian fundamentalism - pretty much a perfect storm of self-delusion. Normally considering the source I would just ignore this, but the story does give some insight into the kind of thinking that allows people to believe this stuff. The comedic value is pretty high too. Continued below the fold.

"We have atheists and Satanists getting the Bible's Ten Commandments removed from public property," said Mark Dice, spokesman for the group The Resistance, "yet the satanic Georgia Guidestones have stood for decades, and nobody seems to care. Well, we do."

Lets look and see exactly what these "satanic" commandments are.

• Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
• Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
• Unite humanity with a living new language.
• Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
• Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
• Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
• Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
• Balance personal rights with social duties.
• Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
• Be not a cancer on the Earth – leave room for nature – leave room for nature.

Ok. The first two unnerve me a little bit because of the potential pitfalls of eugenics, but in principle they would make for a sustainable society and go a long way towards preserving the environment. The rest of the stuff seems innocent enough, though for all intents and purposes most of them are impossible in our society. I'm having a hard time seeing where Mr. Dice gets satanic out of that.

If I were to be charitable and assume that Mr. Dice actually understands what LaVeyan Satanism is and what it represents, then describing the monument as satanic is tenuous at best.

LaVeyan Satanism favors indulgence over abstinence, and emphasizes individualism. Thus the statement "Balance personal rights with social duties" does not fit into a satanic philosophy. Some of the other "commandments" such as "Avoid petty laws and useless officials" do fit into a satanic worldview, but that is almost universally accepted. Except by useless officials and petty lawmakers of course.

I am going to assume that Mr. Dice does not understand LaVeyan Satanism and he actually meant people who worship the biblical Satan. The Satan of the bible is a creature of destruction and discord, its hard to see where guidelines towards living in harmony with nature fit in with that. It seems most likely to me that Mr. Dice simply assumes anything that doesn't fit within his fundamentalist worldview is the work of the devil and thus satanic.

All that said, even if this guy is a wacked out conspiracy theorist it doesn't mean hes wrong about removing the monument. Religious symbols should not be on public land. I don't know if this monument should be considered religious or not. It seems to be some kind of vague new-agey type of deal that may or may not qualify as a religious symbol. However, the establishment clause of the first amendment is one of the most important principles in the constitution, so we should err on the side of caution and not put anything remotely religious on public land.

Dice told WND his group is contacting officials of the Elberton community, trying to rally citizens of the town to pressure their leaders and hoping to generate grassroots opposition from around the country. Since the land the monument sits upon is owned by a private trust and is not public property, Dice said, the battle against the monument will have to take place in the court of public opinion, rather than a court of law.

Oh.
Permalink!