Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: As I recall, you are not a lawyer and you don't seem to have a good command of relevant legal facts.
You're right, I am not a lawyer. However, I would argue that I have a far better command of the facts of this case than you do.
You say students from Christian schools are welcome at UC, and cite as proof that students from certain schools and certain denominations are eligible. Of course, that merely adds to the 1A problem, because it might lead one to believe that denominational discrimination results from this discretionary book-approval policy (thus adding a possible EC Clause issue to the mix).
This is irrelevant to your statement of the facts of this case. Your statement of the facts of this case said that the UC system "excludes children who graduate from Christian high schools". That is absolutely false. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that it is false. I didn't say anything about "certain denominations", I said schools with a tradition of excellence. In an earlier message, I listed some of the top Christian schools in the nation and noted that graduating with good grades from such a school would almost certainly give a student an advantage over public school students because those schools have such a tradition of academic excellence. That list was not from one denomination. It included not only Catholic and Jesuit schools but also Westminster Academy, a Calvinist school in Georgia that is as strongly fundamentalist as any you can imagine. But their students consistently rank near the top in academic achievement, so students who attended that school would in fact have an advantage over students from a public school. Thus, it is highly misleading to continue to claim that UC is excluding children who graduate from Christian high schools. Your statement of the facts is false, period. And your pompous "you're not even a lawyer" declaration doesn't change that fact one bit.
We need to know a lot more about the facts, but it seems that it is only certain textbooks adopted by, shall we say, theologically conservative evangelical schools, that are the cause of the problem. Jim, who is an excellent and experienced constitutional litigator, has the patience of Job to put up with Mr. Brayton's tendentious attacks.
I have not attacked Jim Henderson in any way, and I challenge you to find any instance in which I did. I have disagreed with his positions on any number of matters, just as he has disagreed with mine. His disagreement is not an attack upon me, nor is my disagreement an attack upon him. Once again, I think your statement of the facts of this situation bears little relation to the truth.
But I am not Job. And I grow tired of Mr. Brayton's using this listserv as a forum for attacking people of faith who don't dance to every step of Mr. Brayton's evolutionary rap.
Your weariness at my "evolutionary rap" does not make your representation of the facts any less dishonest, nor does it make your response here any less pompous and unjustified. When you begin to represent the facts of the case honestly and reasonably, then maybe you will have earned the credibility to pull rank on those who call you on it.
Ed Brayton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 8/26/05 _______________________________________________ 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.
