Term paper about 'God' earns student failing grade

[Everett]

I'd personally like to see a copy of this paper before sticking labels on the author. Being a future teacher myself and in the learning process of how to be fair, I find this instructor an idiot, but still, I will not stick any more labels on him unless I know what the paper said.

I'm sure that even my non-religious English instructors would be outraged by this; no matter how many lunatic atheists scream victory over this one stupid case, the point is still clear - strict enforcement of dumb rules cause problems. It's simple to say 'well, I'm a lunatic atheist, so this was GOOD!' or 'I'm a Christian - what a terrible decision!'. I'm not a Christian. But I find this a pathetic decision because I uphold the freedom of speech.

My English professor always said that in the end, it's the quality of the composition that matters. If you don't agree with the paper but it's written expertly and has a clear, well-proven point, tell your opinions to screw off. I've written things that she probably does not agree with and gotten A's.

But before I jump to other conclusions, I really would like to read this paper, though it probably isn't published on the Internet. If it's blatantly religious but otherwise well-written, then I would have probably given her a C for rule-breaking, but not an F. If many of those 'God' references came from quotes, for example, then what's the problem? I don't even know what the paper was about. Hence, I can't say whether or not it had extremist views because I haven't even read it. Just because it has forty-something references to 'God' doesn't automatically make it a strong argument about 'You should be religious or else' blah blah blah.

Simply another reason why I would not wish to become an English professor. Too many subjective views. The only times I would fail a student is if s/he did not turn in a paper at all, wrote it so poorly that it was unreadable, or cheated.

1) I would only get an A- and scream foul that I deserved a better grade; suddenly the ACLJ would rush to my defense, arguing what an outrage it was that I didn't get an A+ like I deserved. Before long everyone at the school would see the error of their ways and enthusiastically embrace atheism.

or

2) I would be burned at the stake for being the heretic that I am.

I am not religious and do not attend a religious institution, but I have written papers with references to God and Christianity before without problems. Likewise, many atheists and agnostics attend the local Jesuit university. Since I am not Jesuit, I never saw any point in attending an expensive, private university for Jesuits. I wonder how they fare.

The latter (2) isn't very likely in this society. I hope you realise that. If not then I pity you.

[bgwah]

Quite pleased to hear this, education and religion are definite opposing values.

Oh please. As I said, it's an English paper - the paper should be graded on how well it was written and if it stayed on subject, not what beliefs the author was trying to convey.

Stayed on "subject," huh? Well her instructions were to write a paper about the role of religion in government without using the word "god," and she failed to do that. That is why she got this F.

It's too bad so many people are falling victim to this one-sided and deceptive news article.

The girl is probably glad she got the F, she obviously wanted it so she could get all her religious companions to attack him with her.

[John Dibble]

Quite pleased to hear this, education and religion are definite opposing values.

Oh please. As I said, it's an English paper - the paper should be graded on how well it was written and if it stayed on subject, not what beliefs the author was trying to convey.

Stayed on "subject," huh? Well her instructions were to write a paper about the role of religion in government without using the word "god," and she failed to do that. That is why she got this F.

It's too bad so many people are falling victim to this one-sided and deceptive news article.

The girl is probably glad she got the F, she obviously wanted it so she could get all her religious companions to attack him with her.

The instruction was entirely unreasonable and based on what appears to be either stupidity(oh no, it might offend someone, we can't have that, because people have a constitutional right to never be offended!) or bias. I'd like to see you right a substantial paper on religion and government without using the word god(synonyms count!).

[bgwah]

Quite pleased to hear this, education and religion are definite opposing values.

Oh please. As I said, it's an English paper - the paper should be graded on how well it was written and if it stayed on subject, not what beliefs the author was trying to convey.

Stayed on "subject," huh? Well her instructions were to write a paper about the role of religion in government without using the word "god," and she failed to do that. That is why she got this F.

It's too bad so many people are falling victim to this one-sided and deceptive news article.

The girl is probably glad she got the F, she obviously wanted it so she could get all her religious companions to attack him with her.

The instruction was entirely unreasonable and based on what appears to be either stupidity(oh no, it might offend someone, we can't have that, because people have a constitutional right to never be offended!) or bias. I'd like to see you right a substantial paper on religion and government without using the word god(synonyms count!).

Oh please, everybody has had stupid teachers. Deal with it, don't sue them.

[John Dibble]

What makes her a fanatic is the 'in your face' title of her paper and the fact that she went to a radical wingnut religious organization to defend her.

"In God We Trust" is an 'in your face' title? The topic was "Religion and Its Place Within the Government" - got change in your pocket? Notice something? Guess who makes those coins. You know next to nothing about the girl and you are calling her a religious fanatic - real tolerant liberal type you are.

[John Dibble]

Oh please, everybody has had stupid teachers. Deal with it, don't sue them.

Yeah, I had stupid teachers, but none of them did anything of this nature. Further, nobody's being sued for money as far as I can tell - she just wants a fair grade. If you know ANYTHING about being an English teacher, it's that you grade papers on how well they are composed and not whether or not you like the content - obviously this is not the case here. If a teacher can't do their job properly and the student suffers for it, the student should obviously take some sort of action.

[Everett]

Oh the hypocrisy...
These kinds of people are forever telling atheists to 'sit down and shut up' and then whine about 'freedom of speech'.

Give me a break.

John Dibble and I aren't religious, by the way.

[John Dibble]

What makes her a fanatic is the 'in your face' title of her paper and the fact that she went to a radical wingnut religious organization to defend her.

"In God We Trust" is an 'in your face' title? The topic was "Religion and Its Place Within the Government" - got change in your pocket? Notice something? Guess who makes those coins. You know next to nothing about the girl and you are calling her a religious fanatic - real tolerant liberal type you are.

Well first of all you didn't respond to the second part of my statement;
yes, in God *WE* trust is in your face because WE implies everyone and everyone does *not* believe in God.

Alright, well back up your claim that they are a radical religious organization. I'm looking at their website right now and I'm not at all convinced that's the case - they seem like the ACLU used to be, with a slightly conservative bent. (and I don't usually see the ACLU defend religious freedom for religious people much nowadays, so this was likely founded at least partially in reaction to that) Yes, they are religious, but I've seen far worse - they aren't even close to radical.

AND ONCE AGAIN, look at your change, and then think about the topic. Also, as I have just read in another article on this, the paper was supposedly written in a historical context, in which case the title is even more appropriate. Also, *we* doesn't necessarily imply everyone.

...and why should I be tolerant of intolerance?

Please offer proof she's intolerant. You've got pretty much nothing so far.

[John Dibble]

Oh the hypocrisy...
These kinds of people are forever telling atheists to 'sit down and shut up' and then whine about 'freedom of speech'.

Give me a break.

John Dibble and I aren't religious, by the way.

Quite right - you can easily look it up in this forum. I'm agnostic. Hell, I've gone so far as to argue with some of the Christians on this board that their version of God(not all versions of the Christian God, though) is evil - particularly the view that you can't get to heaven unless you are a Christian. I view any god who would send people to eternal torment just because they didn't worship him in life, disregarding whether or not they were good people, as a tyrant not worth of being worshipped. And though I disagree with people who believe such things, it's their right to do so. I believe in upholding reason and liberty above all else, and I believe that what this teacher has done is unreasonable and contrary to religious freedom.

[Everett]

Oh the hypocrisy...
These kinds of people are forever telling atheists to 'sit down and shut up' and then whine about 'freedom of speech'.

Give me a break.

John Dibble and I aren't religious, by the way.

Quite right - you can easily look it up in this forum. I'm agnostic. Hell, I've gone so far as to argue with some of the Christians on this board that their version of God(not all versions of the Christian God, though) is evil - particularly the view that you can't get to heaven unless you are a Christian. I view any god who would send people to eternal torment just because they didn't worship him in life, disregarding whether or not they were good people, as a tyrant not worth of being worshipped. And though I disagree with people who believe such things, it's their right to do so. I believe in upholding reason and liberty above all else, and I believe that what this teacher has done is unreasonable and contrary to religious freedom.

That pretty much sums up my beliefs. In my spare time, sometimes I study religious texts in hopes of becoming more informed. I don't agree with everything written in the Bible or Torah (for example), but people should have the freedom to practice their religion without censorship, provided that they are not infringing on anyone else's religious freedoms. Just because I don't agree with Christianity 100% doesn't mean that it should be banned and hidden from public view. Just because I am an agnostic doesn't mean that only agnostics should have the freedom to practice their religion. I have plenty in common with other atheists and agnostics in terms of religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but it saddens me greatly when they become hypersensitive to any mention of the word God.

But what I wholeheartedly disagree with is the subliminal war between religious and the non-religious lunatics. Someone who denounces all non-religious people as being eternally damned is equally bad as someone who denounces all religious people and wants to stamp out every last trace of religion. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very important to me. If I value my freedom to not believe in Christianity that highly, I shall also value other people's freedom to believe in Christianity all the same. I am not being prevented by anyone from refusing to attend church, making the statement that I don't believe in the Christian God, not saying the Pledge (though I recite it happily; the word God does not offend me), relinquishing my coinage that has the word God on it, et cetera. No-one is preventing me from not observing Christian holidays. Therefore, I do not wish to prevent religious people from observing their holidays, talking about their religion, being proud of their religion (I am quite proud of my agnosticism, as funny as that might sound), or writing about their religion.

But while I could boast of the great things that science has done for this nation, I could not do that without using the word Science directly. If someone who was attending a public institution had been prevented from using the word Science, I would be equally upset. However, just because I disagree with and don't believe in Christianity doesn't mean that I should support an atheist student who received a failing grade for mentioning Science in his English paper whilst blasting a Christian student who received a failing grade for mentioning God in her English paper. English is supposed to be about the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech. Freedom, not selective censorship.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Blah, shut up people. The teacher said she can't use the word God in it. She did and got an F. Maybe if she would have not but God in there she might have gotten an A. I don't like the fact that the teacher said she could not put God in there, but that is life. Get over it.

[Emsworth]

Just because I don't agree with Christianity 100% doesn't mean that it should be banned and hidden from public view. Just because I am an agnostic doesn't mean that only agnostics should have the freedom to practice their religion.
[...]
I am not being prevented by anyone from refusing to attend church, making the statement that I don't believe in the Christian God, not saying the Pledge (though I recite it happily; the word God does not offend me), relinquishing my coinage that has the word God on it, et cetera.

The issue with coinage and the pledge is not the free exercise of religion clause, but the establishment clause. Whether even atheists have problems with either is irrelevant, constitutionally speaking. People certainly have a right to practice whatever religion they please. They do not have the right to use the government to impose their views on others. The government should remain entirely secular. It need not, and should not, be hostile to religion, but it should remain neutral, for example by not asserting that a single God (nothing more, nothing less) exists, and by tying such an assertion to one's patriotism as in the pledge.

[John Dibble]

This pretty much says it all:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/falwell_911.htm

Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston - so what? That somehow proves your points about this particular girl and the ACLJ? Hardly, as they have absolutely nothing to do with this particular case.

[John Dibble]

This pretty much says it all:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/falwell_911.htm

Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston - so what? That somehow proves your points about this particular girl and the ACLJ? Hardly, as they have absolutely nothing to do with this particular case.

If you had read the post you would know what the connection is.

I'm not seeing a connection at all - you just seem to be grasping at straws, as nothing in that post has any relevance to anything in this thread. If you don't think that's the case, then back it up with sound arguments.

[John Dibble]

This pretty much says it all:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/falwell_911.htm

Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston - so what? That somehow proves your points about this particular girl and the ACLJ? Hardly, as they have absolutely nothing to do with this particular case.

If you had read the post you would know what the connection is.

I'm not seeing a connection at all - you just seem to be grasping at straws, as nothing in that post has any relevance to anything in this thread. If you don't think that's the case, then back it up with sound arguments.

Like I said go back and read the first post, it is blatanly obvious what the connection is.

I have read the first post and there is no connection as far as I can tell - so it's your job to explain your point, because I'm not seeing one. Make your case for a connection or

[John Dibble]

Yeah right, no connection at all. Just like there is no connection between Cheney and Haliburton.
Oh by the way, the Pope isn't Catholic either.

Stop being a dumbass. Neither Falwell nor Robertson have anything to do with this case. If you believe there's a connection, make a reasoned argument for it - don't just post a link that makes no mention of the case just because the one thing they have in common is Christians(which is hardly a connection) and claim there is a connection.