[aNYCguy]

It's not a comparison; it's a demonstration that speech can rise to the level of religious persecution. That done, one can next proceed to ask whether the present case so rises.

It could be reasonably argued that singling out a student for scathing insults based on their religious beliefs denies that student equal access to education. Good luck convincing a court that the existence of a college course which refers to supernatural legends as "myths" denies anyone equal access to education under the law.

Again, if I belong to a religion whose myths deny the existence of mass, am I being persecuted by the existence of physics courses?

this school is offering a class within the Religion department that labels ID and Creationism as myths. It is analogous to the Psychology department offering a course titled, "Atheism and Other Perversions."

Christian Creationism, as a traditional supernatural story which explains origins and world view, is a myth as surely as are other forms of Creationism. This is a fact. But to call something a myth is not ipso facto denigration, as is calling something a "perversion."

[dsc]

"It could be reasonably argued that singling out a student for scathing insults based on their religious beliefs denies that student equal access to education."

Thank you. And congratulations, you're the first to admit even that much.

"Good luck convincing a court that the existence of a college course which refers to supernatural legends as "myths" denies anyone equal access to education under the law."

Ah, but in this case we have more than that. We have an admission by the head of the department that he did it specifically for the purpose of delivering a slap in the face to the adherents of a specific religious view.

"Again, if I belong to a religion whose myths deny the existence of mass, am I being persecuted by the existence of physics courses?"

No. But it might be persecution if the university published a course title in its official materials reading, "Physics vs. the No-Mass Superstition." If, of course, yours was a valid religion.

"Christian Creationism, as a traditional supernatural story which explains origins and world view, is a myth as surely as are other forms of Creationism."

I believe it is an allegory. However, religious freedom is not limited to people who agree with me. It has no meaning unless also extended to people I believe to be wrong. Using public funds and the resources of a public institution to deliberately slap people in the face for their religious beliefs is a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion.

"This is a fact."

No, it's your belief. Mine is that the stories in Genesis are allegorical, and contain theological but not historical truths.

"But to call something a myth is not ipso facto denigration, as is calling something a "perversion."

Well, this religion professor thought it was. He assumed (rightly) that calling Creation a myth would be extremely insulting. That's the whole point of this exercise.

If calling people's religious beliefs "myth" is not insulting, why would he even bother to have done it? And then crow about the slap in the face he delivered?

You people arguing that it's not an insult remind me of that "Home Improvement" episode where one of the kids threw a brick through a greenhouse window. Tim asked him, "You threw a brick at a window, and you weren't trying to break it? What, did you expect it to stick?"