Big "G" or Little "g"?????

Nihil,

You say that its illegal and against their contract, but I don't really think so. The verbage you posted said that the instructor cannot harass any student, and this including during the grading process. How is telling them not to write about a specific topic harassment? If on the other hand the professor had (and this is assuming its not a religious studies class or something) made the student right about a particular religious belief, then I could see that as harassment. If you view this ass harassment then I see your point, but I personally don't think its was.

Maybe because you're not american you don't understand the 1st amendment to very well (Note, this wasn't a jab at you). American's (atleast around here) are required to take a Gov't class in High School before graduating. The first amendment protects american's from being prosecuted or stopped from expressing their point of view. This is about the gov't stopping someone or jailing them for saying something, not about what grade you receive on the material. The only ground I feel iffy about is whether a community college is considered gov't run. My personal path led me to a private college where gov't laws had very little to do with what they taught me and how I was graded, and thats what I'm familiar with.

I remember in college when a professor gave an assignment and gave a guideline that someone didn't like they took it upon themselves to try to break that guideline and get away with it. The professor failed, then and they complained. The knew what was going to happen before they did it, but still tried to push.

As for the military stuff, you don't need to prove it to me, I know it to be true. I just don't see the "illegal" part of what the professor has done. Prayer used to be part of school, right before the pledge of alligence. That was taken out of school because it was thought of to be harassment to others. Under god was taken out of the Pledge of Alligence because it was harassment. The 10 commandments were removed from a courthouse because it was thought to be harassment. It seems to me the gov't is more saying that the existence of religious material is what is considered harassment, more than the lack of it.

After this thread I'm really eager to see how the case is handled. My guess is the student will settle out of court for some incredible amount of money.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
The student would have then received a passing grade with extra credit for insight.

The RISC/CISC analogy wouldn't apply unless the teacher told the student that the subject was ok only if they left out a core component like the fact the reduced instruction set computers require less commands to complete a task. And when the student uses the word Reduced they fail regardless of the context of the rest of the paper had they not used the word RISC.

The irony I find is the defenders of the teacher profess a profound need for discipline and order in the classroom while on the other hand debating that "order" when it comes to measurement of student achievement. While one could argue the need for technical accuracy in a research paper about RISC computers, this is not the case in this English class situation. Heck most word processors with correct the lower G anyway so I don't get it. Is God on the politically correct hate newspeak list now?

---

You were mistaken about what I meant, or maybe I mispoke. I was saying that if you say that a professor cannot stop a student from writing about religion then that senerio could happen. I think its a dangerous precedent to be setting.

zENGER

You have hit the nail on the head, I do consider this to be religious harassment. It is a double edged sword is it not?.

This lecturer took it upon himself to impose his antitheastic views upon a student. This error is compounded by the fact that he was very technically incorrect in the subject area he was supposed to be teaching: ENGLISH LANGUAGE . Now, if the word had been Jaweh, Jehovah, or Allah, the answer would be the same, it should be capitalised. I am sure that he would have no problem with: Thor, Odin, Wotan, Gog, Magog, Zeus, Apollo, Bhuddah? even Lucifer is capitalised :D (unless, of course, one is referring to a "box of lucifers", which are "matches" or "strikes" and used to contain sulphur. The name coming from "hellfire and brimstone" :) )

That said when I implied "illegal" I meant contract law not Constitutional law, of which I know nothing. I was referring to his college rules, and his contract of employment.

I have a little conundrum for you...................................

The head of the Roman Catholic church is the Pope. Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth. So, how can the Pope be capitalised, and his boss not?

:p

After having read the minds of all involved, I will now tell you
what really happened.

A sexually frustrated small-town wannabe "professor", (he couldn't get
a job in a real university, so he works at a community college, which
is not much more than a public high school) has only one way to make
himself feel important. And that is to strut around lording it over his
students.

Enter one near middle-aged but still good-looking woman, going back to
school after having a couple of kids. Professor is appalled to discover
that said good-looking woman is some kind of fundamentalist freak,
who isn't interested in sleeping with a balding pompous loser.

I shoulda been a screenwriter in hollywood. This stuff is easy.
:cool:

This apparently is a non-issue...the school has not reported on it...the school newspaper/web ( The RamPage ) is ignoring it...even the surrounding local press seems to be unaware of it...

in fact the only paper I have been able to find on this has been the posted website by the OP...which is a Christian site..even other Christian Websites seem to be oblivious to this.

Outside of herself and what is commonly refered to as the Fundamentalist Right...

Quote:

---

Hauf has received legal assistance from the American Center for Law and Justice. The ACLJ is a conservative Christian legal foundation founded by Dr. M.G. "Pat" Robertson ( guess he's feeling a little left out and ignored since his failed campaign and is looking for a vehicle to put him back into the lime-light :D ), who is also the founder, chairman and face of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

---

no one else seems to care or know about it.

Eg ;)

P.S. It was a stupid request by the teacher...but by the same token...she intentionally tried to be controversal...there were other avenues she could have approached first...she could have brought it up to the Student Council or the Dean/Principal, etc...the very fact she made more than 40 references to God/god shows her intent was to stir the pot.

My apologies if i'm repeating someone's post (no time to go through 5 pages) but IMO:


The teacher is being a liberal dickhead who is imposing his/her disbelief to the class. As far as that student is concered, as am I, the teacher was wrong using the word "god" instead of God. It should be God. Atheist or not, who gives a ****...the word is God. I would be offended if I was in her class because she disrespected my beliefs.

Quote:

---

The term God is used to designate a Supreme Being; however, there are other definitions of God. For example:
* Many religious and philosophic systems consider a God to be the creator of the omniverse.
* Some traditions hold that the creator of the omniverse is also the sustainer of the omniverse (as in theism), while others argue that their God is no longer involved in the world after creation (as in deism).
* The common definition of a God assumes omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. However, not all systems hold that a God is necessarily morally good (see summum bonum). Others maintain that a God is beyond the limited human understanding of morality. Negative theology argues that no true statements about attributes of a God can be made at all, while agnostic positions argue that limited human understanding does not allow for any conclusive opinions on God whatsoever. Some mystical traditions ascribe limits to a God's powers, arguing that a God's supreme nature leaves no room for spontaneity.
* The concept of a singular God is characteristic of monotheism, but there is no universal definition of monotheism. The differences between monotheism and polytheism vary among traditions (see also trinity, dualism, and henotheism).
* Some concepts of a God may include anthropomorphic attributes, gender, particular names, and ethnic exclusivity (see Chosen people), while others are purely transcendent or philosophic concepts.
* Some concepts of a God centre on a view of said God as ultimate, immanent, transcendent, eternal Reality beyond the shifting and constantly mutable multiplicities of the sensible world.
* The concept of God is often connected to principles of absolute morality or truth.
* There are variations on defining a God either as a person, or not as a person but as an ambiguous impersonal force (see Absolute Infinite). Also at stake are questions concerning the possibilities of human/God relations. There are countless variations in traditions of worship and/or appeasement of a God.
* Some espouse an exclusionist view, holding to one sole definition of a God. Others hold an inclusionist view, accepting the possibility of more than one definition of God to be true at the same time.
* There are also atheistic explanations for the concept of a God that can include psychological and/or sociological factors.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Quote:

---

...the very fact she made more than 40 references to God/god shows her intent was to stir the pot.

---

Depending on the size of the written paper, it might have been appropriate to reference God 40+ times ;), although I do agree with you on that. I would have done the same just to piss off the teacher.

Quote:

---

Yes you ****ing did, he told you up front.

---

The teacher doesn't decide what is considered taboo and what is not. If you want a paper written on God, then you don't put down other's beliefs by FORCING them to use it in lower case which is disrespectful.

Quote:

---

She even got the chance to change it and recover her grade. She is either stupid, arrogant or looking to make a name for herself.

---

She was given a chance to write the paper WRONG....the teacher gets a big **** YOU.

The word is "God" when you're referring to the christian monotheistic God, yes. The wikipedia article is wrong to capitalize god in the phrase "a God", though. The non-specific use of "god" should not be capitalized (e.g.: "The Romans had a lot of gods", and not "The Romans had a lot of Gods" - or "A god is usually considered to be a supreme being", and not "A God is usually considered a supreme being"). I'd check some grammar resources instead of an article on God, Cybr1d ;)
In every single grammar course, you'll find this rule:
"Capitalize the names of God, specific deities, religious figures, and holy books.
EXCEPTION: Do not capitalize the non-specific use of the word "god"."

God, god, who realy gives a sh**. The 'E'nglish language is so bastardised, doe's it realy matter?

At the end of the day, the incorrect use of a gramatical term should equal a loss of marks. Not a fail.

Are we assuming that the student used the word God when it should have been god as in "a god"?

Any way we can read the paper were discussing here?

Quote:

---

Are we assuming that the student used the word God when it should have been god as in "a god"?

---

No, I'm not :) The student was (grammatically) correct: her use of the word God asked for capitalization. The way it is used in the wikipedia-article does not. "A God" is always wrong, since "a" indicates non-specificity.