It is possible though unlikely that the instructor could in fact be pro-religion and does not want (a) such atheist attacks and/or (b) one-note trumpeting of the “obvious” which he may feel is not only inappropriate for a term paper but also a trivialization of his faith.

The ACLJ’s demand that the instructor “receive some kind of training to sensitize him to the constitutional dimensions of his employment in a public educational institution” reminds me of the Oregon “summer diversity seminar” mentioned in another recent post.

It is ironic that advocates of free speech want to force someone to think the way they do. Free speech for me, not thee …

If I had said such a thing after approving the topic “Religion and its Place within the Government,” here’s why I would have done it:

It would be too easy for a student to write something like, “It is self-evident that there is one true God; therefore God has a proper place in government” followed by reformulations of that statement. Regardless of whether that stance is correct or not, reiterations of the same point do not result in a term paper worthy of the name.

It is quite possible to write about that topic in more than one way without resorting to “one true god argumentation.” (NB: I am not necessarily endorsing these views. I am merely providing examples.)

A: “The United States was founded by Christians and is still a Christian-dominated nation to this day, centuries later. A democracy should have a government reflecting the beliefs of its people …” (AFAIK, the instructor did not forbid the word “Christian.”)

B: “The United States has never been religiously uniform, and its religious diversity is increasing every day. If the government is to serve all its people, it cannot favor one religion over another …”

I should point out that the title of the paper contained the word “religion,” not the name of any particular religion. In an American context, “religion” can be a de facto synonym for “Christianity,” but it need not be, because of the multiple religions that exist in the US. And the student could have referred to other countries’ church (or mosque, temple, etc.) and state policies, so in such circumstances, “religion” need not have involved the big “G” God.

Although the instructor outlawed the mention of “big ‘G’ gods,” he may have permitted references to gods in general: e.g.,

A: “The United States government must respect the many gods of its diverse population by implementing the following policies that support their faiths …”

or

B: “The United States government must not favor one god over another …”

Moreover, it would be an error to equate “religion” with “theism” because of Buddhism which is not explicitly theistic.

Needless to say, I have no idea what the instructor’s motivation was; my point is that his request need not have been unreasonable.

And Hauf, IMO, would still have gotten an F if she used terms such as: Creator, the One, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or Brahman.

The rules were outlined, the student knew them in advance, but violated the rules anyway. She deserved what she got.

In college, your essays are more than just adhering to grammar rules. They just have a point, a coherent thought, have a purpose, and follow the rules set for them.

Such is life. In life, if I don’t follow the rules, I get a big fat “F” - I get no breaks just because I believe in God.

When I was teaching university classes I often gave similar assignments - removing such a central concept [yes, I agree that God is awfully important when discussing Christianity] forces students to research/understand certain topics much deeper than if they could use those concepts as starting/return points on which many university-level papers rely.

I can’t imagine that a CC prof. would have this in mind, but it can make for some interesting challenges - and in turn, interesting papers - for stronger students.

Disagree? Write a page about Christianity using the term “God” as much as you want. Write another without using it all - and that doesn’t mean substituting terms like “Creator.” You’ll find one more difficult than the other.

Sounds like she won, to me. She took her complaint up the chain of command, but that didn’t help. She chose to write the paper her way, despite the rulings. She failed on the paper, but passed the course anyway. What better way to tell the athiest professor to go ^@#$ himself?