Heh. That's a slightly misleading title. But somewhat the truth.
A Federal Court judge recently ruled that California Universities can deny credit to students who take courses where the Bible is treated as infallible:
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts – not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
I like the part about failing to teach "critical thinking". But ultimately, this isn't really that big of a deal. Most colleges will accept the Bible as a historical scholarly document. But if you start claiming that there are no contradictions and everything in the Bible is literally true, well then you're kind of crazy.
As much as I believe in religious freedom, they had to draw the line somewhere. If a religious school in their match curriculum asserted that 2+2=5, wouldn’t a University be right to deny the student credit for math skills? I wouldn’t be surprised if this goes to the Supreme Court, but it would probably be a good thing for the government to send a message that religious beliefs are not a valid substitute for a scientific education.
As a survivor of an A.C.E. school, I’m well aware of how certain topics are blatant attempts to proselytize rather than to teach subjects objectively. Many religious parents are more concerned that their kids become properly indoctrinated rather than assure they have the best education possible. Or should I say, that they believe that this kind of indoctrination IS the best education possible.
“match curriculum” ? I ned 2 lern to spel.
I believe it is primarily the responsibility of parents and youth pastors to teach the Bible as devotion. Discipleship happens through relationships and others genuinely living it out. The kids need to see it lived out. A religious “education” is not a substitute for that. That is not a way to reach out and disciple. It is no surprise that many of these kids turn away from faith when they are in college.
FICM:
And this was an appropriate line because…?
So you’re equating someone who doesn’t teach macro-evolution and/or believes the Bible to be infallible with someone who believes 2+2 = 5. Nice.
The suggestion that Christian schools proselytize and secular schools simply educate is either naive or downright dishonest. I’ve spent nearly a decade in both. Proselytizing is everywhere in education. Only different people proselytize different things.
I suspect you and I would agree on the need for critical evaluation of information in education, regardless of the subject. And I think we both appreciate people who are able to communicate information without endlessly inserting their own prejudices.
But what I’m taking issue with is the apparent suggestion that Christians can’t think for themselves, just do what they’re told, and get angry at anyone who disagrees. While I know Christians who meet this description, I know equally as many secularists that do as well.
If you think fundamentalists are the only one’s who get violently angry at people who don’t live the way they think they should, just tell your local environmentalist that you drive a Hummer, live in a 20,000 sq foot house, and never recycle.
If you think blind faith is a fundamentalist thing, ask the guy on the corner collecting signatures for Green Peace why he believes man-made global warming is destroying the planet. Watch how quickly he starts citing “experts”.
People frequently give themselves to causes they know almost nothing about because it is popular and feels good. Thats a human condition, not a fundamentalist one.
The problem with accepting the ridiculous stereotype that secularists think and Christians don’t is that you give away your religious freedom under the false pretense that secularists are objectively interested in “academic integrity”. Secularists evangalize just as fervently as Benny Hinn. They just have a different message, and are typically (though not always) more sophisticated.
DOC, you’re creating all sorts of strawmans in that post. I don’t think anyone said half the things you suggested. But ultimately, here’s the difference. It’s more permissable to disagree in a secular environment than it is in a Christian environment. And I’m speaking as someone who attended both Christian and secular schools.
Also secular arguments are made based on facts and science. Christian arguments are made based on Faith.
But I agree with you about the Environmentalists. They’re just as dogmatic as fundamental Christians.
As for failing to teach critical thinking, that can happen even in a secular college. Take my first year of Portland Community College, I had two classes where the professors were nuts. They were very incompetent and would rant and rave on topics and subjects that were irrelevant and inappropriate to the class. One of the professors would humiliate, single out and mark students down for choosing a different opinion, perspective or of he feels the student is “challenging” him. This had nothing to do with Christian or non-Christian. It was a psychology class and one of the students was more of a behaviorist which went against his views. That same psychology professor, made a distasteful racist joke that pissed off the whole class. I did not learn anything from those classes and felt they were a waste.
I actually attend a Christian university and they do not fundamentally proselythe Christian views. The humanities subjects are balanced and we hear different perspectives. If it werent for this, my other choice would have been PSU. I think the Christian university prepared me better for graduate school. I’m an English major but I have friends who are majoring in sciences and biology. They had no problems getting prepared for graduate school and attending med school. Their first year at grad school was easier because of their education they got at undergrad level.
Not all Christian schools or universities are educationally incompetent. Not every Christian school is like PBC or City Christian. There are people who went to Christian schools and homeschooled that went into universities, law schools and did well academically.
On the other hand, I cannot imagine going directly to law school with only a 4 year degree from PBC.
My impression is that some or many of you went to one of those fundamentalist Christian schools as a kid and that influenced your views. Thats understandable. Dont let negative experiences in church or Christian school influence your perspective.
Nope, I’m saying that religious beliefs shouldn’t supplant scientific beliefs. It’s one thing to have religious beliefs about things that science can’t verify. It’s another thing when religious beliefs appear to contradict science. If you wish to believe God created the Universe, we’re talking philosophy and cosmology. If you wish to believe that God created the Universe in 144 hours and evolution did not occur then you’re contradicting an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. But rather than to reconcile the differences, many Christian educators simply plug their ears and shout, “You’re wrong!” The Church once believed the world to be flat and the center of the Universe, and persecuted those who dared to contradict Scripture with Science. Our modern society seems inclined not to repeat those mistakes.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The dictionary defines it as:
“to induce someone to convert to one’s faith”
Science and fact are not matters of faith. Unless public schools are actively recruiting students for various religions your argument goes out the window. Christian schools, by nature, are concerned more with a child’s spiritual well-being than anything else. I linked the ACE web site because its efforts to proselytize are blatant. “Reaching the world for Christ, one child at a time.” I’m not implying it’s a bad thing, I’m just saying let’s call it for what it really is.
If parents were honestly interested in the best possible education, they’d be sending their kids to prep schools and hiring private tutors instead of wasting money on Christian schools whose only added value is the spiritual indoctrination aspect. If my parents had saved all the money they had spent sending me to a Christian school, they could have paid for my college education. Instead, I have student loans to pay, and much of the “learning” I did in high school actually gave me a handicap in dealing with getting through a real educational system.
Like all stereotypes, this one is born out of truth. The stereotype wouldn’t exist if Christians weren’t so fatalistic about their beliefs trumping science. If Christians were open and honest about examining their faith in light of science, science that God Himself created, then there wouldn’t be such hoopla over seeming contradictions.
And there is a difference between “religious freedom” and being willfully ignorant. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you wish, we are after all a country founded in religious freedoms. But then would you really expect anyone in academia to take your scientific views seriously?
I personally haven’t heard of one Christian high school that has a solid reputation as a legitimate, educational school.
Does anyone know of one?
Outside of America, there is Kodaikanal International School in India. It’s a Christian school and was built about 100 years ago for missionaries kids. But now its a private school. It’s well known around the world. My parents tried to send me there one time but I didnt get in because their admission standards were tough.
Jesuit high school in Beaverton area is pretty good from what I’m hearing (from believers and non-believers as well). When I was in high school, my parents werent Christians (my Dad was an atheist but okay with academic study of religion). They wanted to send me to St Marys and were looking into reputable Christian schools because of the education. I refused to attend a Christian school because I was a zealous atheist/New Ageist at that time. I would have to take a couple of religion classes but everything else would be well with me. I also didnt want to go to an all girls school
These are Catholic schools but I know people who’ve attended those schools who range from religious to deists and agnostics. I knew a girl from St Mary’s that was admitted into Stanford with scholarships.
Or take Concordia University or University of Portland. If I was a non-believer, I would have dropped out right away if these schools were not academic and rather religious-based. Why would a non-believer attend a Christian school if the primary reason was non-academic? There is a large number of non-believers that attend these schools because of their education. I’ve heard non-believers say that they liked the education.
I checked out the ACE school and I was not at all impressed. I would never send my kids there. Not all Christian schools are like ACE, City Christian or PBC.
Cat said:
I can’t agree or disagree with this statement. “Tolerance” is difficult to quantify and our evidence would be entirely anecdotal. I’ve been in churches where disagreement was frowned upon, and I’ve been in other churches that are doctrinally conservative where agreement is welcome.
In colleges, I had a professor admit that she gave me a low grade on a paper because she disagreed with my conclusion. (I convinced her that was improper and she raised the grade). My wife was forced to redo a paper in her master’s program because her first version rejected the premise of the assignment that everyone is a victim and everyone is a victimizer. They told her she could not finish the class if she didn’t spell out all the ways she had been “victimized”. This is a school everyone in America knows. Examples like these are literally endless, particularly in the sciences with people who question materialistic evolution.
At the same time, I’ve seen plenty of pastors pull rank and try to manipulate people who challenged them as well.
FICM:
This whole issue gets fuzzy when you use phrases like “appear to contradict science” and “contradicting an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence”. Those terms are subjective. What is persuasive to you, may not be persuasive to me.
For example, I completely reject the idea of macro-evolution. I don’t say this because it threatenes my belief in Christ, but because I’ve seen no compelling evidence to suggest it happened (and I’ve looked at a LOT). Granted, the dogma and outright dishonesty of many who’s careers and worldview are dependent on materialistic evolution does make me skeptical of their conclusions. The same goes for many so-called evidences of a young earth. Regardless, I’ve seen nothing beyond conjecture to suggest that mud becomes people given enough time. The fact that lots of smart people disagree with me doesn’t bother me in the least.
I don’t believe my belief is contradicting an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence, as you suggest, because I think the so-called evidence is faulty. You have apparently looked at the same evidence and disagree with me. I think you and I are ok with that.
So you and I establish schools for our kids that meet state standards. The classes reflect our respective opinions. The idea that classes taught from my perspective would be denied credit but classes taught from your perspective would be recognized is blatant viewpoint discrimination on the basis of religious belief–especially in light of some of the nonsense you can get college credit for these days.
Again, I think you’re only acknowleding one side of this coin. I agree with you that many Christians are unnecessarily attached to a particular interpretation of Genesis 1. However, the idea that secular scientists are not fatalistic about their belief in naturalistic evolution is preposterous. There are few people as dogmatic as atheistic biologists. Their science is their religion. If you destroy the material/random explanation of their theory, their worldview crumbles around them and they must confront the possibility of a creator, which has devasting ramifications.
My point is, everything you hate about the church exists in the secular world as well. So reacting against Christian intolerance without addressing secular intolerance is essentially prejudice.
“It’s more permissable to disagree in a secular environment than it is in a Christian environment. And I’m speaking as someone who attended both Christian and secular schools. ”
That statement sounds a bit naive to me. Intolerance and inability to disagree DOES exists in secular environments as well. I too have attended both Christian and secular schools. I used to be a non-believer. I’ve seen prejudiced towards disagreements in public schools as well.
I took a religion class in a Lutheran university and I wrote a paper disagreeing with the professors stance . He is a very passionate about his ways. I thought I would get a bad grade but I was surprised to get an A in his class. He gave the grade to me because he thought I did a good job in explaining my perspective. In that class, we always argued and discussed different views. This included the outspoken atheist and those who dont see that the Bible was against homosexuality.
“My point is, everything you hate about the church exists in the secular world as well. So reacting against Christian intolerance without addressing secular intolerance is essentially prejudice.”
Makes sense. Intolerance is not just a Christian or fundamentalist thing. It is part of human nature. They manifest in different ways.
Exactly! There are some things that science has difficulty proving, but in most cases, it is only a matter of time until someone discovers a way to do so. Evolution, in my mind, has yet to be proven, although I’m sure there are some that would disagree with me. On the other hand, how can one explain away the mountains of geological evidence, the paleontological records, the anthropological records, and the astronomical evidence of the Universe itself? All these things seem to point in a direction Christians are uncomfortable with, because they hold on to the dogma of their faith too tightly. Rather than admit the possibility that their understanding is incorrect, they hide behind the flag of religious freedom. I’m OK with people having religious beliefs. I’m OK if you want to believe that evolution didn’t occur, let alone even consider the possibility. But if science says the world appears to be much older than 6,000 years, then you either have to adjust your faith & beliefs to compensate or stop believing in science.
But I will agree with you that both sides can be equally dogmatic. Both sides think they “know something”. The problem with this situation is that those who belief originates in faith are at a disadvantage – those whose beliefs originate in science can ultimately prove theirs. But an interesting observation about science is that the greatest advances in knowledge occurred when old beliefs were destroyed by new evidence that led us to a better understanding of the Universe. Scientists actually hope to discover the next big thing that will change the paradigm for the better. Faith, on the other hand, is rooted in absolutes. It is by nature ideological and immutable. Revelation is treated with skepticism, scorn and persecution. So it’s no surprise when science is treated the same way, and apologies are few and far in coming. The wheels of faith turn very slowly.
I know it sounds like I’m defending the evolution camp here. But my honest belief about all of this is, “I don’t know!” Since I don’t treat the Bible as an infallible document, I’m willing to concede that there may be some things in it that can’t be reconciled with science, and maybe we’re not supposed to. There are some mysteries that may never be solved in my lifetime, and I’m OK with that. I don’t feel the need to take sides in order show my true allegiance. It’s possible that both may be right, and that we just don’t fully understand how that can be just yet. I’m a lot more comfortable with that idea than having to swallow the religious horse pill that says I must believe X or I’m a heretic.
So what should the final authority be if an apparently unambiguous portion of scripture contradicts an apparently sound conclusion of science? Do we reinterpret scripture or assume the science is wrong? Does the answer to that question depend on which scripture we’re talking about?
This is really the crux of the argument. If the class is one in which the Bible is debatable, then the state will accept that class credit. However, if it’s a class where the Bible is undebatable, then the state won’t accept the class as legitimate. Seems like a reasonable standard to me.
This is a good question. Do you happen to have a specific example of when this might occur?
[Comment ID #34376 Will Be Quoted Here]
I don’t know, you tell me. If your faith tells you to believe Scripture instead of science, that’s your business. But since the government isn’t allowed to decide faith issues for us, it must come down on the side of science when determining what schools allow or don’t allow for course credit.
I wouldn’t say my faith tells me to believe Scripture instead of science. I don’t see the two in conflict. But should an apparent conflict arise, I would assume something was wrong with my interpretation of scripture or with our understanding of science.
I would be willing to reconsider my view of the scripture provided the re-interpretation did not require me to compromise non-negotiable truths. And if you are a disciple of Christ, some things must be non-negotiable. Otherwise, I would assume the science was incomplete. But in no case would I conclude that the Bible is simply wrong. I’m not willing to place myself or scientific concensus as the final authority. Thats my concern with denying infa
If I believed they were “coming down on the side of science” I would agree with you. But I don’t. The judge said these classes “omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.” Is suspect what she really meant was, “you didn’t teach them what me and my friends think you should have about evolution.”
Every class omits important topics of science and history. In my public high school, the teacher skipped the section on evolution entirely because he thought it would be controversial. Instead, we spent our time on genetics and the make up of cells. That shouldn’t be vorboten
Hell, most kids in public school can’t do basic algebra, can’t find Iraq on a world map, and don’t know who we fought in the Revolutionary War. But kids in Christian schools, that, on average, test much higher than public schools, are punished because the classes were not respectful enough of evolutionary theory.
I don’t know the facts of this case, and for all I know these history classes were straight Bible study. But I’m very uncomfortable with the state deciding you’re not thinking critically if you believe the Bible is literally and completely true. We may disagree on what that means, but the suggestion that it precludes critical thought strikes me as bigotry.
[Comment ID #34378 Will Be Quoted Here]
No, but I’m thinking about it.
I agree with much of what you’ve all said about how lame many Christian schools are, etc. However, I have to say I am actually somewhat alarmed by this court’s findings, and their implications. I agree with DOC:
I’d also like to know who decides what “topics in science and history” high school courses must include (and not “omit”) in order for the course to be given credit by UC. Nearly all states have state standards and benchmarks for every grade, and if a course teaches students those standards/benchmarks, that’s what really matters. I’m also a little confused, because most universities just want those who enter as freshment to have a high school diploma with a certain number of credits in certain subjects. I don’t believe it’s common practice for universities to get down into the details of exactly what is covered (or omitted) in specific courses.
It’s one thing for all of us, who are believers, to debate “how to do Christianity.” It’s a major leap from that to supporting the courts in discounting the work of students who believe that the Bible is infallible. Again, I am concerned about this and its implications.
Sounds like the students at CA Christian high schools who want to attend UC are going to have to count on scoring well on the SAT and get in that way.
By the way, kudos to anyone who throws out any book(s) by Bob Jones University. Seriously scary stuff in those books.
If you believe the Bible is literally and completely true, then you’re not thinking critically. Even people who say this, don’t actually believe it. It just allows them to use their favorite scriptures, without having to think about whether that scripture is right or wrong.
My favorite Biblical contradiction, which I stumbled across when I was about 10 years old is this:
Proverbs 26:4 -Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
Proverbs 26:5 -Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
That’s about as clear a contradiction as there gets. Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with this. The Bible is essentially saying, sometimes it’s good to answer a fool according to his folly, sometimes its not. But there is not a clear black and white rule on how to behave in this area. And frankly, I think this type of thinking also applies to many other portions of the Bible as well.
[Comment ID #34366 Will Be Quoted Here]
Jesuit
Catalyst,
Does “infallible” mean “literal?” I don’t believe it does. I will research that, though.
What does “literally true” mean? I’m asking honestly, not trying to be antagonistic. I’ve found that often defining key terms can help people be on the page about the topic at hand.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe the Bible is “contradiction free” in the literal sense. However, I don’t believe, as many do, that the presence of contradictions, or seeming contradictions means we should throw the whole Bible out or that interpretation is completely subjective, i.e., everyone can interpret however they wish and everyone is right.
Locutus: Jesuit is Catholic. I know Catholicism is considered part of Christianity, but Catholic schools and “other” Christian schools are typically not at all similar.
A contradiction is disagreeing with yourself. I don’t think this is a contradiction at all. Its just paradoxical. Proverbs is making the point that there are times to respond to foolishness and there are times not to. If the two sentences were in different books, you may have a point. As written, I think its hard to argue it is disagreeing with itself.
I don’t think it does, no. Infallible means without error. Literalism is the idea that the stories in the Bible actually happened as they are written. It is often discussed in the creation story in Genesis 1. Some believe the six days referred to are literal 24 hour periods. Others believe its merely descriptive of a longer creation period. The issue also comes up in flood story. I’ve also heard people suggest that Jesus’ miracles didn’t literally happen, but are described figuratively.
I could quote elements from all the threads to give context, but I think this story will speak for itself.
At TC(H)S a discussion broke out about the literal truth of scripture. We’d been talking about Astronomy, the planets, etc. When one of the kids mentioned the scripture of creation referring to “the sun, the moon and the stars” as distinguishing those celestial bodies.
Now we all knew, from overwhelming evidence that our sun IS a star. Even so, a (carefully not to be named) teacher steadfastly maintained the position that science was wrong. “When science and scripture disagree, scripture wins every time” and insisted that eventually science would learn that the sun was in fact distinct an unique from those things we call stars.
At a young age, that clear head-in-the-sand ignorance set me on the path to questioning EVERYTHING I hear in the faith community. And now, yes, I’m convinced that our bible is by NO means the literal plenary verbal words of God.
I know we can get caught up in various views of evolutionary thinking. But this kind of teaching from Christian instructors is where these stereotypes originate. Skip the “evolution == religion” straw man. Christianity has more to answer to.
Unless you -don’t- think the sun is a star.
–p
[Comment ID #34385 Will Be Quoted Here]
Yeah I went to Central Catholic (Jesuits big rival at the time) and the education there was very strong. I had a friend that transferred from Jesuit to Central and he told me how hard of an academic school it was. But I don’t really equate either of these schools as “Christian” though. Maybe it’s just me, but I find no difference in the way they are run from the way public schools are run, except students are required to take Bible classes and sit through 4 hour masses during Christmas and Easter. And the principal’s a priest. Plus their religion classes were a complete joke because they taught you nothing from the Bible. It was more new age spirituality sort of thing.
I see no reason to conclude that the mention of both the sun and the stars in the same verse somehow suggests that the sun is not a star. It seems reasonable that the verse specifically mentions the two most prominent celestial bodies and then generally refers to the others as stars. We don’t fault the verse for classifying the planets, other moons, and asteroids that also exist in space as “stars”. Seems like an appropriately generic term under the circumstances.
Such as…?
[Comment ID #34402 Will Be Quoted Here]
You are kidding, right? I’ll skip the prod for the most part, but we can start with the Crusades, the Pogroms and the already mentioned “flat-earth-as-dogma” and leave the rest to the student.
“Maybe it’s just me, but I find no difference in the way they are run from the way public schools are run, except students are required to take Bible classes and sit through 4 hour masses during Christmas and Easter”
How should a good Christian school be run in your perspective? Describe it.
I didn’t phrase my question well. Christians always have done evil things in the name of scripture that aren’t at all biblical. To that extent, your point is well taken. But I fail to see how thats relevant to 21st century Christian schools.
Since this discussion is about the rationality of trusting and teaching scripture, I guess what I’m interested in hearing is why Christians schools should be ashamed of teaching that the Bible is trustworthy. (Or am I mischaracterizing your position?).
Also, whats the prod?
[Comment ID #34408 Will Be Quoted Here]
Focus on education more then religion but still incorporate faith into each classes curriculum. The Christian schools I’ve heard of or been apart of spend a majority of their focus on religion and demote the actual education, yet the Catholic schools mentioned dumb down religion so much that there really is nothing gained for the students.
A good Christian school should find the balance. There should be solid English, Math, and Science courses with faith a part of the learning structure. Here’s an example: during my senior year at Madison High my English class read some great classic literature – Grapes of Wrath, To Kill A Mockingbird, A Tale of Two Cities, Catcher and The Rye, etc. During my wife’s senior year at City Christian she read nothing but the Bible. Now why can’t that Christian high school have their students read those kinds of books and discuss them from a faith-based perspective? That would be a good Christian school.
“Now why can’t that Christian high school have their students read those kinds of books and discuss them from a faith-based perspective?”
Reformer, sounds good. As a teacher I am surprised that a Christian school does not teach anything except the Bible. I cannot understand that because there are several Christian themes or references especially in European, American Literature and especially others. I can name several works where we could discuss and incorporate faith easily.