Student gets F grade for mentioning God

Originally posted by websurfer

"I have one limiting factor – no mention of big 'G' gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation," Shefchik stated.

There we go. A teacher says to do something within his specifications then do it. All she had to do was follow simple directions, which she seems incapable of.

Well, she did it on purpose.

She was told not to use the word God and why. It's a logical 'shortcut' on a paper examining the role of religion in goverment. She was reviewed and warned what would happen. Asked to edit. She didn't.

She submitted a paper titled "In GOD We Trust" in protest.

Why do people martyr themselves then complain about it?

ACLJ and it's propaganda clearing house the WorldNutDaily do this stuff all the time. Which is fine. But call it what it is. A framed test case. She did it on purpose. She wanted the F. She wanted to sue. Go for it. But don't pretend you don't like the feeling of those nails in your hands. You know you do.

Originally posted by Jestaman

So, she wrote "God did it" 41 times.

Wrong again.

"Bethany Hauf, a freshman at Victor Valley Community College near San Bernadino, wrote the G-word 41 times in a paper titled "In God We Trust," examining the role of religion in government.'

Originally posted by Jestaman
I read it, why I used 5-10 pages(since she wrote that many) in my example.

So, she wrote "God did it" 41 times.

Again...you misread the article......she did not write "God did it" 41 times.
She wrote "GOD" 41 times.

wrote the G-word 41 times in a paper titled "In God We Trust," examining the role of religion in government.

There is a difference ya know. If you're gonna use " " be sure the text inbetween them is correct.

Rant, I do not think this is the case. The rule was do not write a One God Argument, which I totally agree with because you just cannot get facts to back up any God. But examining religion in Government is not a One True God Argument and it is totally valid. The professor gave the F just because he did not like seeing the word GOD, not because the paper had no merit - which is wrong.




[edit on 30-6-2005 by zerotime]

Well if she wrote an asignment that was not on the required topic than i see no reason she shouldn't fail. You can't just write about whatever you want and expect to get a high grade. It's not often you can choose exactly what to write about, otherwise all my essays would have been about my personal interests rather than topics that relate to the subject we were covering. I don't think her teacher would have specifically told her not to write about the subject if it was relevant. Anyway one of the reasons you go to school is to prove to prospective employers that you can follow their instructions even if you disagree with them. If your boss or teacher says don't write that, you can protest and try to get them to see your point of view but in the end you have to do what is required of you. Personal interests can wait until after work or school hours.

You know, we can't really say either way unless we actually read this report. For all we know, it actually goes on to talk about how religion is important in government because gods rules are the only true rules, and the government must use religion to judge themselves with. I mean, that would deffinitely get an F in my book if it was a report about serious cultural and religious impacts on government. So really, without seeing this paper, we're only seeing one side.

Originally posted by Legalizer
Her essay can be found here

Here's her email address

[email protected]

Ugh. She uses "God" 5 times in the first two paragraphs after being told not to. Obviously an angry stunt. Oh, nice "scholarly" citation too.

The Alliance Defense Fund and the Bible. She was researching for her law suit not the paper. She might as well have cited WorldNutDaily too.

Hmmm. Had to go back and check. This is supposed to be college, but it's community college. Ah, who cares.


Sue bored housewife, sue like the wind!

May your "banned" essay find you much fame and fulfillment in FreeRepublic buddy list chain mail spam for years to come!

However, it is improbable to think with so much evidence as to the leaders’ religious convictions that they wanted to see a country without a presence of God, and its people living in ignorance to the Holy Scripture.

Thats probably what flunked her, it sounded very pushy on a religious agenda, and almost an insulting attack on people that arent christian "Its obvious that the founders of our country would not have wanted to seen our country in the shape it is in now."
Atleast, thats what I saw when I read it.

Originally posted by RANT
Ugh. She uses "God" 5 times in the first two paragraphs after being told not to. Obviously an angry stunt. Oh, nice "scholarly" citation too.

The Alliance Defense Fund and the Bible.

She was researching for her law suit not the paper. She might as well have cited WorldNutDaily too.

Hmmm. Had to go back and check. This is supposed to be college, but it's community college. Ah, who cares.

May your "banned" essay find you much fame and fulfillment in FreeRepublic buddy list chain mail spam for years to come!

I read the first few paragraphs - not going to read the whole paper - but nothing I have read in the beginning sounds like the student is proclaiming one true god. Almost every time the word God is used it comes directly from a historical quote from a past government leader.

I'm sure this student did pick a topic that they knew would challenge the beliefs of the professor. Everyone should challenge authority figures every day. In the end, it just sounds like an overbearing teacher wanted to show this girl who the real God was in the classroom.




[edit on 30-6-2005 by zerotime]

Uh, yes, Jestaman, you were trolling. You know as well as anyone else, "God did it." was never said, and as well, your analogy of Japanese laser weapons on the moon is irrelevant as well.

Only those who prefer to write God out of American History can deny God's role in the forming of the government, as well as the early nation. To do so is either dishonest, or displays one's ignorance of our governmental history. Whether the adjunct professor likes it or not, the nation was founded on the Christian faith. This is clearly evident, and the only way you can miss that is by studying only revisionist history.

Back to the facts of the case.
Was this particular topic assigned to Miss Hauf, or did whe pick this particular topic for her essay, knowing she would run into trouble? The article didn't clarify that.

Rant, I am very amused by your ridicule of any other-than-mainstream media outlet, and I am also equally amused by organizations that have been created to protect those of us who are not allowed to share in the same liberties others are allowed. These organizations are a countering force to those who are trying to drive those of us who this nation was created for to begin with. I find this very ironic, and I also find it hypocritical. Furthermore, I find it annoying as Hell that so many of the anti-Christians believe we are supposed to shut up and take it. Any resistance is seen as us being the "nuts".

When I went to a 4 year school, I ran into the same type of anti-Christian knuckle-draggers, but the difference was that I was not a child and, after eight years of the U.S. Army (not to mention a handfull of years being maried to Satan's daughter), I could stand my ground with the best of them. I didn't need the ACLJ. I was the abnormal, though. The colleges are no more than indoctrination centers for the NWO, and if you don't go along with their nonsense, you'd better keep it to yourself until you get your sheepskin.

I am very familiar with the hostile environment that exists on college campuses toward those who hold conservative views or have religious faith. However, it is the duty of the student to produce work that is in compliance with the assignment. If the student disagrees with the assignment, then the student can produce a work that meets criteria and complain about the assignment. In any fair environment, the paper would have been judged on its merits, regardless of what words were used, but when the professor clearly states what is expected, then it is insubordinate to do otherwise.

The student should have taken a hit for not complying with the stated requirements of perhaps a letter grade. That would have made the point well enough and probably would have avoided all the hoopla. Giving the student an "F" was no less wrong than the student's having ignored the professor.

Here is why I believe it was a bias and nothing else...

I’ll use this hypothetical:

Same teacher.
Same student.
Different paper.

This time the title of the paper is “The Negative Affects of God and Religion in Government.” The word God still appears 41 times but obviously in a different context. Does anyone really believe that this teacher would give this new paper an F because the word God appears in it?

She writes a paper on a topic approved by the professor -- religion in government. From rereading the article, it really appears this is not an issue of her using the term "God", but that she capitalized it and didn't throw an "s" at the end. She was allowed to address dieties, but was not permitted to refer to God, only gods.

If I may quote something Odium quoted from our debate:

Science teachers should not advocate any religious interpretations of nature and should be non-judgemental about the personal beliefs of students.

Apparently, teachers are supposed to be judgemental about the personal beliefs of students if they're not science teachers?

Thomas, you forgot one key truth. Those rights only apply to the intellectual elite and their followers, because we idiots who believe in something greater than ourselves are too stupid to know what to do with freedoms, and any attempt must be a spin campaign skewing facts and politicizing issues, unlike the totally neutral ACLU. The ACLJ and World(Nut, was it?)Daily have to go NOW, because we all know, as a fact, that the religious are simply weak minded sheeple who can't seem to follow what that intellectual elite tells us is true.

Legalizer posted:
posted on 30-6-2005 at 10:53 PM Post Number: 1498654 (post id: 1520547)

You know if you don't do a job the way you are told to do it in the professional
world, its called insubordination, and is grounds for dismissal.

Her essay can be found here

Here's her email address

[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From what i can understand it was a english paper. If so, i don't see why a teacher may ask his/her student to NOT include God in the paper.

If it was a philosophy/sociology paper, I can understand why not mentioning God in the paper may be a provision.

Amir29

Originally posted by Legalizer
Her essay can be found here

This was a very well-written paper. It is factual, well organized, unbiased, with plenty of citations to support her thesis. This is clearly an "A" paper.

Her professor is a horse's patootie, but he's the one who makes the assignments.

Maybe, there will be a good out come in the end, in which such limitations of speech will be abandoned. Don't hold your breath.

TC and JungleJake, you both should spend some time researching BoildNutDoiley before defending it. This is not the Christian Science Monitor we're talking about. It's Rense for Christians. No, not even that credible.

It's Sollog.

Farrah will take one person's e-testimony (like "my boss eats babies") and write and rewrite the story a dozen different ways linking to itself as a source merely to create a bonafide # storm on the Internet. It will be reported nowhere else (and they'll say that proves it's a conspiracy) but they'll post it and 'interview' James Dobson a week later to see what he thinks about it, then post that. It'll still be unproven a month later. Then they'll post what some lawyer Farrah knows thinks, link to what Dobson thinks, and encourage you to e-mail your friends. A year later, it'll still be total bull#, but they'll link to themselves when they make up a new story to prove it's a "trend."

I've debunked, I've investigated, I've called defamed individuals and organizations on my own for the whole story, and it's not a particulary difficult or partisan task to see 50% of the time they're simply lying, and the other 50% they are bending the truth beyond all comprehension.

You can feel oppressed all you like because I think Farrah is an Internut, but it doesn't wear well on experienced Internet researchers such as yourselves. This story is probably true enough, but it's still just a blip on a blog. It's nothing. It's not validation of anyone's martyrdom fantasies. It's not even important. But we'll be seeing it for years as "proof" of all kinds of things now.

So pardon me for guffawing at manufactured outrage as a business enterprise. It's certainly not like I'm picking on an "other-than-mainstream" source. WND is what's wrong with the Internet. It is mainstream.

A September 7 "WorldNetDaily Exclusive" article boasts that WorldNetDaily.com is the No. 1 political website, according to Alexa.com, an Amazon.com company that collects and ranks Internet traffic. The article also reported that Alexa.com ranked WorldNetDaily.com as the No. 1 most-visited conservative Internet site. The No.1 WorldNetDaily.com is followed in the conservative website ratings by right-wing news site NewsMax.com (No. 2); the conservative online forum Free Republic (No. 3); the conservative Heritage Foundation's website Townhall.com (No. 4); and the conservative National Review Online (No. 5). The September 7 WorldNetDaily article noted: "Farah is quick to point out that he does not consider either himself, nor his independent news service, 'conservative.'" WND's definition of "independent" refers to "news sources developed exclusively for the Internet," according to the article.

Joseph Farrah (WND)

Don't you get it? You professional victims run everything! Have since 325 AD. You can stop crying wolf any millenium now.

[edit on 1-7-2005 by RANT]

This is what's wrong with America, the media, the Internet, conspiracy theorists, this website and every single member here.

This is a manufactured event. A blip. Nothing. They make these things all day long. Before it's over with it'll be on Fox News. Probably referenced on the Senate floor.

And everyone goes nuts. The poor, poor Christians. So oppressed. Here's a manufactured example; It's a vast conspiracy.

But one of the most influential conservative Christian leaders on the PLANET (possibly second only to the Pope), and certainly the most influential Christian behind the Republican Party and every policy they make from anti-gay amendments to tax supported FCBI's has a $71 BILLION dollar investment in running North Korean nukes and nothing, nada, no sir... that's an anomaly.

Hardly worthy of comment. Certainly not fit for "mainstream" news. No. That's for stories about how the media is liberal, or political correctness has ruined your life, or whites can't get jobs, or Christians hit a minor snag in their overt agenda for world dominion. The source? Some dude did something or couldn't do something or did something just to get in the news and it's an outrage!

No. You're not sheep. You are the conspiracy!

[edit on 1-7-2005 by RANT]

This is a bit interesting. SO why is this exactly news? It kind of reminds me of the Back Street Boys or any of the other manufactured boy bands: Take nothing, hype it up, and then see if this sticks.

She understood the ground rules of the assignemnt prior to starting it. She chose to deviate and write an OP/ED instead of sticking to the assignemnt. If your boss ask for a specific report and you fail to deliver, I would expect a reprimand as well.

This pretty well sums it up. I love the total lack of personal responsability. By all means everybody if you fail make sure you: Go ASH

Alert the Media
Secure Representation
Hype Hype Hype

And I suggest that Mrs. Hauf — or any other student who insists on writing evangelistic essays — would be happier at a privately supported, religiously oriented institution rather than a public, government-run school. Separation of church and state is part of our American government system. In fact, it's in the first part of the First Amendment.

Judith Pfeffer, adjunct instructor, Victor Valley College
vvdailypress.com...

This is actually becoming more and more interesting to me.

First, I want to say I can't really defend WorldNetDaily, I don't know much about them. I do know much about the ACLJ, though, and they are not a propaganda tool.

I find the outrage over peaceful protest in this situation really remarkable, too. There's a lot of parallels here between what she did and, say, what Rosa Parks did.

Now before you get in an uproar, I'm not comparing the current Christian bashing trend to the plight of African-Americans in this country. I'm comparing the methods used for change. We have some of our foolish Black Panthers, our Malcolm Xes, protesting through violence by burning abortion clinics and killing folks with different politics. The true irony with that is just how contradictory it is to what Christianity stands for. Then there's the peaceful protest. Martyr yourself in some manner, then bring it to the public's attention.

An English teacher, not philosophy, not science, but english, and a professed athiest, gave one word restriction. Only one. He doesn't like the idea of God, doesn't seem to like the idea that other people believe in this "God" thing, and tried to impose that on his students. This young woman protested the assignment, peacefully, by addressing God when discussing religion in government. The teacher bit, and it went public.

So she did something that was wrong by the basis of the requirements for the assignment. So did Martin Luther King, he took it, but he made it as public as he could. At the time, people would be ranting and raving much the same way Rant is now about those lousey blacks. I just really find it ironic how the sides have shifted to such a degree. The same people who would defend MLK's methods and the methods used in the civil rights movement in the 60s cry out against many of the same actions being performed by Christians, who, on campuses, are feeling pretty rejected and oppressed on campus. I'm actually in the process of writing something about that. You might want to ignore it, Rant, because it will definately piss you off, and as I said before, that's not my goal, it's to make our perspective on these issues known to as much of the world as I can.

Disagree, but at least disagree with the true reasons, not the fabricated ones given you. (This is a general statement, not directed at any individual)

Originally posted by Jestaman
So, I have to take a science test, and it asks me "How does Centrifigul Force work." According to you I can answer "god did it" and not be failed? What? Hell, next year senoir year, gonna be so easy!

The paper she was wrote was about religion and government. You
can't write a paper about religion and NOT say the word God. It's
virtually impossible. The tone of her paper wasn't evangelizing, it
was discussion about religion and government.