The SFGate is running a story about a Judge's ruling that the University of California can reject requests for science course credit if their courses in a religious school didn't actually teach science. Seems like common sense to me: if you don't learn science, why should you be given credit for it?

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday.

No, not quite. It's more like applying the same standards to everyone equally. If my school decided not to teach science because it was a waste of time, then why would I get credit for it? I'd be surprised if the university didn't laugh in my face when I asked for that credit even though I didn't learn. Charles Robinson gets it right:

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."

Yet again, they want exemption from normal societal standards because of their beliefs. It's fine to believe whatever you'd like, but you can't ask that people treat you differently because of it. As some people were saying in the comments, this isn't a "free speech" issue or, a human rights violation (geez, a bit over the top). The university isn't asking you to believe in evolution, merely that you have been taught it and understand it. The same goes for math or physics. If you don't believe in gravity, fine, but you better know about F=ma if you'd like to get Physics credit.