Student gets F grade for mentioning God

RANT! You have actually shocked me. You are dis'n community
colleges? I think they are WONDERFUL! They are a ramp up for
folks who can't afford 'name' colleges and for people who just want
to take a few courses and aren't interested in a degree. They are
GREAT for kids who messed up in high school but have 'grown' and
now want to do better for themselves.

Oh RANT ... how 'neocon' of you to turn your nose up at a community
college!

Huh? Have you seen thier site. SLick religious propaganda tool if I ever saw one.

Some topics from thier "Issues" index (And believe me this dude has alot of issues)

Does Creationism Deserve to be Taught Along with Evolution in the Public Schools? (wonder what his answer is??)

Opting Out Of Objectionable Classes


Other position papars amount to a "how too" to get around those sticky rules regarding tax exempt churches and voter registration efforts etc.
All the above taken from www.aclj.org...

This whole thing is beginning to smell like a set up

Yes, that's true, but I think the prof. approved the topic, didn't he?

They had a conversation and he told her not to use the word 'God'.
Sounds like he knew what she was writing about and he didn't
say 'don't do it' ... he just said not to write the word 'God' and then
showed his own bias putting God into the Easter Bunny category.
(which wasn't the purpose of her paper - to prove God exhists -
it was to examine the role of religion and goverment)

-Creationism
-Evolution
-Aliens implanting
-DNA came in on a comet - space dusted
-etc etc etc

ALL unproven theories. All, or none, deserve to be acknowledged as
theories of how man came to be. That's all they are ... theories.
Acknowledging that a theory exhists is not the same as endorsing it.

Oh .. and acknowledging that we may not be the brightest things in
the universe and that we were designed by a being or beings brighter
than us may indeed by a valid scientific theory.



[edit on 7/1/2005 by FlyersFan]

If putting your opinions on issues, what your group stands for, and ways to get around the system on issues that go against what you believe in makes the ACLJ a propaganda tool, then every one of us here at Above Top Secret is a propaganda tool. You, me, all of us, because we've posted our opinions online, too.

Am I to understand that, if you don't want to be a propaganda tool, you're required to not open your mouth? Really takes away a lot of the power that word had...

Propaganda = exoressing an opinion where people can hear/see it.

Guess propaganda's not all that bad.

Expressing your opinion is one thin in the context of say ATS however the website we are talking about fits this definition far better:



Clearly this bored housewife is either a pawn or has purposely set out to make this into an issue using the ASH principle I cited above. Either way, she failed to meet the requirement as set forth by her instructor in a state funded school that is subsidizing her tuition. Any more than say I could write a papaer about the glories of athiesm and expect the Padre at a Jesuit school to wax poeticaly about it.

And FlyersFan: You have fallen victem to the symantics misinformation spread by the ID/creationism mafia. Really go look up what a true scietific theory is. I do not want to delve into a evolution debate as there are plenty of threads already out there

Propaganda (from the dictionary)

1) information or ideas methodically spread to promote
or injure a cause, group nation, etc.
2) the deliberate spreading of such information or ideas.
3) the doctrines or principles propagated by an organizations.

Now there are extremes where LIES are used to injure.
Goebbles .... Michael Moore .... NEA ....
But the word propaganda itself doesn't necessarily have a negative
meaning, even though most of us now use it to mean one.
(me included)

Why do you think she's a bored housewife? She could be getting
a degree to better herself, make herself more marketable, do better ...
That's why most housewives go to community colleges - so when the
kids are old enough to go to school, the wife can work outside the home.
Or if something happens to the husband, she can then be marketable
and make enough money to sustain the family. Common' FredT ... It isn't
like you to say something like that.

If you say so. Sounds valid to me though. I think that the theory
that we are here by design of a brighter being/beings is scientific.
But it's okay if you don't. Doesn't much matter to me. I happen
to think that we PROBABLY got here by some form of evolution with
God at the helm of it. But whatever.

[edit on 7/1/2005 by FlyersFan]

Exactly. I'm assuming here that by leaving out the "G" word, it was to make the students really think, and for the assignment to prove challenging. The student seems to have simply taken the easier route and not written the paper within the constraints of the assignment, therefore, she made her bed and now must lie in it....

Whether atheist, buddhist, christian whatever.....if I strayed outside the guidelines of an assignment, I'd no doubt be marked off for it also...

Exactly. I read both the article AND her paper. Her grade shouldn't surprise her since the teacher contacted her when she was in the planning stages and told her that the paper was going in the wrong direction.

Now, folks, I'm in grad school. I've done a few papers and the profs always tell us to give them the summary and let them see the work in progress. If you do and if you follow their suggestions you almost always end up with an A. If you ignore their suggestions, you end up with a much worse grade.

Now -- she was told that the prof wanted papers on a specific topic and that Big Government and Religion were NOT to be the focus. While she could have gotten away with the topic, actually (talking about the impact both positive and negative) on the subject if she'd focused on the question the prof wanted addressed.

For Example:
"It has long been argued just how much impact religion had on the foundation of our government. Religious attitudes have had an impact on shaping the first schools -- Bibles were the early textbooks -- but teachers and others moved beyond religious material into secular material that drew from what was current in England at that time." (etc, etc)

She could have gotten away with that.

Instead, she writes:


She did what the prof did NOT want. He didn't want sermons. He wanted papers.

I don't think the prof should be penalized because she's too egotistical to follow directions... and too egotistical to accept helpful suggestions that WOULD have gotten her an A.

This is utterly ridiculous. The course she was taking was English 101. Can we put that into perspective? Here is the course description:

ENGL 101.0 English Composition and Reading 4.0 units
(CAN ENGL2)
Prerequisite: Completion of ENGL 50 with a grade of "C" or better. Principles and methods of expository writing. Analytical reading of source materials and writing of expository essays. CSU,UC

This is a basic writing course where the assignment was a research paper, and the approved topic was "Religion and Its Place within the Government." A requirement to exclude the word God from this approved topic is insane, or her sources and citations could not have been used under those circumstances, since that's where the word appears. The professor made it perfectly clear that his requirement was based on his own bias and I'm sorry there is no place for personal bias interfering with the teaching/learning process.

The purpose of the course itself is not served by this arbitrary requirement after approving the topic. Oh, and by the way, there is a big difference between not following an unreasonable if not impossible direction from a College Professor and a future employer. In the first example, you are paying to them to be educated, not make ridiculous demands. In the second case a person making ridiculous demands on you is paying you. However, an employer never has the right to direct your right to free speech especially if it regards religion, which is not even clearly a point of the paper in question.

In my opinion this is one of those sad cases where a college professor is too full of himself to realize HE is not god, but merely a person being paid to teach. He needs to get over himself and keep his bias out of the teaching process. In another instance one might actually argue that this was an execise that served a purpose towards the goal of the course, but not after the comments made by him exposing his real feelings on what he thought about God and why he told her she couldn't use it.

I could maybe accept this if it were some sort of philosophy class or political science class or in fact anything other than what it was. But give me a break - English 101. Let's get a grip. The professor was way out of line on this one.

While there has been some good and valid points made, I saw this more of an issue of trends in education, specifically the permeation of liberal and secular (read Atheist) thought throughout a system previously controlled by conservative and theistic institutions. In response to those that support the instructors instructions to omit any mention of deity, specifically God (big "G," little "o," little "d"). Let's see how far that would go at Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Boston College, Liberty, Southern Methodist, or heaven forbid... Oral Roberts.

Exclusion of a integral historical factor in a dissertation? (Count how many times that dirty word "God" appears in the Declaration Of Independence, The Constitution O TheUnited States, and countless other documents) I'm sure the University of _________ (fill in your favorite oppressive country's institution) does the same.

Are you saying that I could write passing term papers in those schools saying that Allah, Odin, Satan, Bael, Asmodeus, etc were integral to the United States of America, with examples of slavery, discrimination, murder, greed, rape, etc as my back up arguments?

All she had to do was focus on "religion" and not "single all powerful entity" to get a passing grade.
If she can't formulate her argument in that direction, then she is incapable of critical thinking.



Irrelevant. She could have found thousands of other ways to make her case while following the guidelines she was given, she chose not to, in order to play her part in the this legal charade.
In other words she proceeded on a course of malice, not education.

It's quite easy actually FlyersFan, use Allah, Jehovah, Budda, Goddess, or gods....... Not that hard.

Also, you people don't understand the point of "God did it." I know she didn't write that 41 times, but the whole point of the teacher was not to use god as a shortcut, and "God did it" is a shortcut, just like my Japanese Lazar and the Martian Monkeys comparisson.(spelled wrong dang it)

You can't do a report on the evolutution of monkeys and prove they had wings 10,000 years ago if your teacher asks for a report on the ideas behind what killed the dinosaurs. Doesn't matter how great the monkey report is, if it isn't what your teacher wanted you to write, then you fail!!

And again, Masons founded this country, therefor we are a Mason Nation, not a Christian Nation. Which may explain what happened to our presidents/country. They went from being Masons, doing what was right for the people of this country, and into a later generation of christian presidents who want to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them. Right now Islam doesn't agree with christianity, so the christian president is trying to wipe them out. Along with gays, christians really hate gays cause the OT tells them to. I mean, with the Masons it was about expanding west, make deals with Indians, then someone not a Mason, like Andrew Jackson, would get in power and wipe out anyone who didn't with christianity.(few million Indians)

And i though school is the first thing that taugh values but now school system tend to go down. bascially i am say the school system suck

I think that is quite a stretch on why the professor said not to use God in the paper. By his own words, it was due to his personal disdain for the concept and the the fact that some people might find it offensive (again a personal opinion). His reasoning is stated via email and there is no literary exercise attached to the requirement to avoid the word.

In other words, the professor could have used it as a tool for a writing challenge, but there is no indication that was his intent, and substantial evidence what his intent was. He was way off base.

.
If the original assignment specified not including the use of references to God,
or if in intermediate stages the instructor informed the student,
Then the student has to conform to the instructors constraints,

This is how school works.

It forces your brain to do things other than its standard pattern,
This exercises the brain.
It should give you a new horizon from which to view the world.

If on the other hand the instructor received the finished paper and only then told the student of this new constraint, then the instructor is at fault.
An experienced instructor knows pretty well what parameters they want/need to include to exercise the students brains along the avenue of expanded thinking.

One of the main points of education is to expand and strengthen your thinking process. It isn't just aquiring a lot of disparate facts. It is the ability to select from many ideas and have the comprehensive power to use them conjunctively.

School is not there so you can reinforce the trench you live in,
It should lift you out of it to gaze at the larger world.
This often entails some serious brain work.
.

This is nothing more than the liberals jumping for joy at another opportunity to challenge God in our society. Or should I say controlling God in our society or taking him out completley.

It was predicted or prophesised many years ago that this nation would turn it's back on God. This great country of ours was founded on Godly principles, founded by men that had personal relationships with God ( Not just a religion - just going to church ) but actually seeking council from God above in the founding of this nation and even forming the government with Godly principles derived from the Ten Commandments.

Now the people are turning there back on God like we have never seen before. It's an attack. The ACLU will do everything they can to remove God from everything except at church. Well that's what they say but they have also been going after churches as well.

I don't believe most people even know what the " Seperation between Church and State" even means or what it was to originally protect. Our own government has turned this around to protect individual rights of agnostics and or other religions instead of protecting the rights of the Church from Government . Not just a church but Christianity in General.

How did this happen ?

When did this happen ?

When did the constitution change ?

Who was the president in power when ever this was challenged ? ( NO IT WASN'T BUSH MY FRIENDS ) keep digging ! It's really no surprise ! Once you name them look a their faith statments. It really is no wonder !

Ten Commandments being removed from schools + Taking the word of God out of school + Only teaching the "THEORY" of Evolution + presenting humanism into our childrens lives

= What else can we expect from our generation that is running our government ?

By the way-The Term paper was Great ! should have got a B+. I would have been even more informative about the relationships that these God fearing founders of our nation had with our God-Jesus Christ ! Not allah !

Truth !

Exactly. It allows the professor to take out a truth that you hold, and forces the students to think in the same ways he does. Essensially, if you want a good grade, think like an athiest. If you want to fail, think like a Christian. This is how school works. People here are saying that needs to change. School is not an ideological indoctrination platform, it's to educate our children, yet we see time and time again it being used for exactly that.

The teacher said she may as well have written about the Easter Bunny. This authority figure just told her, in that statement, that she could not be a believer in any god and manage to pass the course, because athiesim is integral to the understanding of english.

Remember, folks, ideological indoctrination is 100% fine if it fits with your political and [a]thiestic beliefs. This teacher will be championed as a hero by some, he took on the dreaded beast of Christianity in his English 101 classroom, and he may win. If he does, the Supreme Court's decision stating that we do not hang our first ammendment rights up when we walk through the schoolhouse door will be nixed. Yeah, you can talk about God, but if the teacher decides the ongoing debate for the rest of the year in english cannot include any reference to the Christian god (it forces the students to excersize their brains, after all) or they fail.

.
Apes and Chimpanzees don't change or exercise their intellectual capacity from generation to generation, maybe that is why they are still Apes and Chimpanzees.

The Human brain is, as far as we can see, the most flexible and adaptive thinking machine in the known Universe. It is, i am certain the thing that differentiates us from other species.

The point of going to school is to exercise your brain.
America is becoming both physically and intellectually unworked.
If something is true a stronger, better exercised brain would be able to defend it better.

Once again the Religious right is in favor of lazy intellects.
You go to school for an expansive experience. [or shallowly for a certificate]

If you want a religious shoebox experience of the world stay at home and only communicate with other religiously limited intellects.

If on the other hand you want to embrace the mystic future in all its unknowns, go out and seek a diverse range of experiences, and it may [or may not] re-shape your views of the world.
.