With great appreciation for Eugene's moderation of this list, which is essential to its value (and appreciation for his creating such a wonderful venue for discussion in the first place):
I think there is a lower signal to noise ratio on this list than there used to be. Perhaps all of us can be sensitive to that and can try to focus our posts on the purpose of the list. As I now understand it, Paul pointed out a lot of flaws in Christianity to show how a course could be taught that would have a narrow anti-Christian point of view. I gather he would consider such an anti-Christian course to be just as objectionable as a narrowly pro-Christian course. And Paul assumed the courses at the Christian high schools (that is, the courses that the UC is refusing to recognize as meeting its curricular requirements) would be narrowly pro-Christian, with no discussion of Christianity's flaws. The argument then is that if the UC is not to be permitted to judge whether pro-Christian courses are acceptable, then it also should not be permitted to judge whether anti-Christian courses are acceptable. This is a kind of reductio ad absurdum designed to convince list members that some kind of review of viewpoint by the UC is appropriate. Perhaps then some of us would back away from a claim that the UC was engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by refusing to recognize the pro-Christian courses. I did not read Paul's post as making that argument until, in a later post, he clarified what he was saying. Initially, I simply was offended by the laundry list of evil attributed to Christianity and by what seemed to me to be a stereotyping of religious educators. As clarified, I think his point is very germane to this list's topic. And let me say that I value the substantial contribution Paul makes to the list (though I usually disagree with him!). I agree with Eugene that it is not enough that a post "dramatize the ample space available for critical discourse about the dominant religion in American life." But if a post examines the degree to which a government body may demand that a private high school's courses include such critical discourse, then that seems to me to be on topic for the list. My point, in response to Paul, is that the UC violates the Free Speech and maybe the Free Ex. Clauses if it singles out Christian high schools by only asking whether Christian schools' courses are taught with an appropriate breadth of viewpoint. I also think the content of the courses at the Christian schools is likely to be broader than Paul assumes, and thus they are not likely to be analogous to his hypothetical, narrowly focused anti-Christian course. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
