Term paper about 'God' earns student failing grade

[John Dibble]

It's an English class - how well the paper was written is what should be graded, not whether or not the teacher likes the contents or not.

[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.

[John Dibble]

Can we assume that this was not a relgious school that she was attending? If she is such a religious fanatic why wasn't she going to a religious school in the first place?

1. A person doesn't have to be a religious fanatic to believe in God.

2. If the school is not privately owned, that is it's a government school, then freedom of religion still applies.

[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!).

[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.

[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.

[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.