We are taught both evolution and creationism.

I don't consider that to be evidence of a quality curriculum. That's like saying a school teaches both astronomy and astrology, or both chemistry and alchemy.

If the facts that we learn are not distorted, why would it matter what a private school correlates with that information afterwards?

The purpose of any good school is not just to teach children to recite lists of facts; the purpose of school is to teach students how to think and reason critically. The "philosophy" that's taught at a school is not an unimportant add-on to the factual information, but the heart and soul of its educational mission. As described in the court rulings, many of the rejected courses explicitly taught students that faith in Christianity trumps any and all evidence and that the findings of science must be rejected wherever they conflict with Calvary's chosen interpretation of the Bible. That is indoctrination, and it is the total opposite of what a good education should do.

I want freedom of religion, not special treatment.

You already have freedom of religion: you can study whatever courses you like at your private schools. You do not, however, have the right to ask UC to suspend its academic standards and grant college credit for courses that do not meet their requirements. That is special treatment, and that's precisely what Calvary was demanding in this lawsuit.

We are taught both evolution and creationism.

Honestly, we are presented with the same data that is presented in public schools, and after that - after we have learned fact - we simply study the possible relationship between the data and christian philosophy - a given for a christian school.

I do not agree with several of the philosophies that the school holds, so I simply do not agree. Every student has free will to believe what they want, and we are encouraged to challenge what is presented to us.

Personally, I expected this to fail and move on to the 9th circuit. It may end up being a supreme court case with the attention the case is getting now. I personally know the lawyer in charge of the case, and he has expected the same. The case is basically arguing that private schools should have the right to relate information with christian philosophy (including judaism, and catholicism as well). Our students score above average public schools, and many of our students are accepted to universities ranging from Harvard to USC. We are entirely capable, and the large majority of us are entirely open minded.

I believe our country was founded on religious freedom (William Penn, Anne Hutchinson) - not christianity (although the majority of colonies held harsh christian ethics). If the facts that we learn are not distorted, why would it matter what a private school correlates with that information afterwards? If a student in the public school system was to study biology in school, then go to church and ask a pastor how that correlates with christian philosophy, that would not be wrong. So, how is it wrong that we do both at the same institution. Our classes deserve UC credit because we are not less able, and we have learned just as much or more than the public school system - that is the argument in a nutshell, or at least what it is most of the time.

The school sometimes does generalize the argument, as one person commented. Sometimes the argument does seem to be an "everyone hates christians" fit. As far as the media goes, they do distort the argument to fit the anti-christian conspiracy, as I am the representative for the school body and have had my fair share of publicity interviews.

Thanks for reading this post, and I hope that you will understand where I come from. I want freedom of religion, not special treatment. As an atheist, you should also desire the freedom of religion, as that is what kept the revolutionaries such as Hutchinson from being murdered by the radical protestant church.

In closing, I love your page and find it excellent that you have made an informed decision about your beliefs (unlike some other parties...). Thanks!

Louis

It just never ceases to amaze me that these people continue to refuse to have any relationship with reality.

As an aside, for those familiar with the Dover ID case, I just started reading 'Monkey Girl', by Edward Humes. I'm only up to page 102 or so, but this is proving to be a very enlightening book. Humes seems to have done very thorough research into the players and, so far, does not seem to take sides. Even so, the thing that jumps off the pages the most is the sheer obstinancy of the creationists. Their willingness to lie, obfuscate, bully and threaten to get their way is deeply disturbing, along with their absolute refusal to even learn about the things they are so set on fighting against. A very clear and frightening case of "My mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts!"

I am pleased that our judiciary have been able to see through the crap that these people push into the courts and hold the line. Let us hope that they continue to do so.

Also, if they were using the textbook as evidence, why didn't they bring a copy to court?

Because Christians are bad with evidence
*zing*

Also, if they were using the textbook as evidence, why didn't they bring a copy to court?

The interesting thing is that in the right district or political situation, Christian ideas do get a lot of deference. Perhaps Calvary simply generalized a bit too hastily.