Unfortunately for this thesis, Dini failed to specify exactly what sorts of "cherished beliefs" he was interested in snubbing. Presumably, if a student presented with the "cherished belief" that the world was the vomitus of Raven, and humans a particular creation of Raven, rather than having evolved, Dini would also deny that student a letter. Presumably, if a Satanist came forth to insist upon his "cherished belief" that all humans were the literal spawn of Satan, rather than having evolved, Dini would also deny that student a letter.
Of course, there is still a difference between those hypothetical students and this actual Christian student. The hypothetical Native American student can probably expect no help from the Liberty Legal Foundation or the Eagle Forum. And otherwise well-meaning freepers would probably not feel particularly compelled to step up and defend the "religious freedom" of the Satanist. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that if this kid were actually a Satanist who denied evolution, these threads and this extensive discussion of this affair would simply not exist on Free Republic.
And you can bank on it. But don't take my word for it. One, two, three, four threads about Wiccans right here on FR. See how many people who have been defending Spradling's religious beliefs right here on this very thread you can spot attacking the religious beliefs of Wiccans. I won't name names, but I've got two - maybe you can pick out a few more. Ask yourself how deep this noble commitment to the principle of religious freedom really runs. Ask yourself why it is that on those threads, it's almost never the fundies who step up to defend "religious freedom" in those cases - that thankless task appears to be left to the libertarians, of all people....
"Students who deny the evolution of humans" do not comprise a protected class under the law, and may be freely discriminated against. Game, set, match, A-G.
But that’s not what I said. In fact, ”students who deny the evolution of humans because it ‘seems’ to contradict his/her cherished beliefs” are a protected class under the law, and may not be discriminated against. Game, set, match, G-E!
Without regard to any of the statutes forbidding discrimination based on religion – and looking only at the first and fourteen amendment – Dini’s requirements coerce a student so situated to disavow their religious beliefs to continue on into medicine.
Certain aspects of religious exercise cannot, in any way, be restricted or burdened by either federal or state legislation. Compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship is strictly forbidden. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 ; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 . Thus, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 , this Court held that state action compelling school children to salute the flag, on pain of expulsion from public school, was contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments when applied to those students whose religious beliefs forbade saluting a flag. But this is not the case at bar; the statute before us does not make criminal the holding of any religious belief or opinion, nor does it force anyone to embrace any religious belief or to say or believe anything in conflict with his religious tenets.
The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S. 296, 304] second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. 4 The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom.
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.'' 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.
Although at one time accepted in principle by all of the Justices, 23 the tests have sometimes been difficult to apply, 24 have recently come under direct attack by some Justices, 25 and with increasing frequency have not been applied at all by the Court. 26 While continued application is uncertain, the Lemon tests nonetheless have served for twenty years as the standard measure of Establishment Clause validity and explain most of the Court's decisions in the area. 27 As of the end of the Court's 1991-92 Term, there was not yet a consensus among Lemon critics as to what substitute test should be favored. 28 Reliance on ''coercion'' for that purpose would eliminate a principal distinction between establishment cases and free exercise cases and render the Establishment Clause largely duplicative of the Free Exercise Clause. 29
I disagree. Dini specifically used the term cherished beliefs and qualified it further as to those who do not believe in human evolution. Worse, he set the trap to identify the very ones he chooses to discriminate against, by asking this question first: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.”
He is asking the student for a profession of faith – that the student believes in science over his own “cherished beliefs.” This is not unlike Caesar warning that he will fed to the lions any who don’t worship him and then asking “Who is your God?” That is coercion and it is unconstitutional.
You have to come to grips with the fact that the set of Biblical literalists and the set of Christians are not one and the same.
Dini didn’t make a blind requirement for students, he actually singled out to bait the very ones he targeted for discrimination.
You are the one demanding that Dini name a religious denomination - the above Supreme Court cases refer to “religious beliefs.”
Ask yourself why it is that on those threads, it's almost never the fundies who step up to defend "religious freedom" in those cases - that thankless task appears to be left to the libertarians, of all people.
You have never seen me allege that Federal law does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States! And you never will.