"Recently there was an instance in one of my classes where my religious standards were put in jeopardy by a mandatory assignment given by a professor."

http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/schoolwork-religion-clash/article_8d3a0cd8-b7a7-11e3-ba0b-0019bb2963f4.html

I'm guessing this is one of those students who couldn't get into BYU.

I couldn't access it because I'm not a subscriber. What was it all about?

"To the editor:"

"All my life I have been told how privileged I am to have grown up in this country, to have political freedom, and freedom of religion. I am currently in a political sociology class at Utah State University and my eyes have been opened to a very horrific reality. This country and everything it was founded on is in fact revolutionary and I am privileged to have grown up in such a land where I can worship freely, but the horrific reality I have found is that these rights are being forgotten, or at least it seems that way."

"Recently there was an instance in one of my classes where my religious standards were put in jeopardy by a mandatory assignment given by a professor. When I expressed my concerns to the professor and explained my religious beliefs and even offered to do and alternative assignment, I was told that I had the right to refuse to complete the assignment but would have to accept a zero. I understand the right of the professor to choose the assignments given, and I understand that if I had refused the assignment that it would only be fair for me to receive a zero, but why was there not an alternative assignment? If we live in a country of religious freedom where we are promised that we will not be discriminated against based on religion, was this allowed to happen? Why were my only options to jeopardize my religious beliefs or take a zero? I know we are not supposed to mix church and state, so I should just suck it up and do the assignment. I mean I’m a college student for crying out loud, it’s expected that I will face opposition in my life. But why? Why, if I am told in school to accept others regardless of race, gender, religion, or whatever, am I put in a position where I feel as though I have been discriminated against? I do not think the professor meant offense in any way, so I completed the assignment, I did so uncomfortably and against everything I believe, but I did it all the same."

"I fear that we are forgetting our basic rights as citizens of the United States of America. Our Founding Fathers built this country on the hope and promise of religious freedom. So why then do we even propose to take “In God We Trust” off our currency, and “One Nation Under God” out of the pledge of Allegiance? Let us remember the values which this great nation was founded on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Robyn Maynard

Logan

> I understand the right of the professor to
> choose the assignments given, and I understand
> that if I had refused the assignment that it would
> only be fair for me to receive a zero, but why was
> there not an alternative assignment? If we live in
> a country of religious freedom where we are
> promised that we will not be discriminated against
> based on religion, was this allowed to happen?

That's because YOUR religious freedom does not mean OTHERS have to adapt their behaviour to your belief. It just means you can believe what you want. It does not exempt you from doing what is required to earn a grade.

Unsurprisingly, the nature of the 'horrific reality' the letter writer referred to was left completely undefined and vague - merely a lot of badly written blather about how threatening an assignment was to her belief system.

No details were given nor any argument advanced except "I was uncomfortable about the nature of my assignment and told the professor I'd do an alternative assignment instead, but the professor actually wanted me to do the assignment or take a zero."

Whiny, poor-me, it's not fair - the usual.

Basically whining because he didn't want to do an assignment (doesn't say what it was) and felt she should be allowed to do an alternate assignment. Spouted about religious freedom.

She did have a choice though, she could do the assignment or if she truly felt it violated her religious beliefs then she could take the zero.

Not sure what the big deal it, if your convictions are really that strong then accept the consequences of those convictions. I am thinking this young woman isn't ready to be in the real world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2014 02:00PM by roslyn.

It is kind of fun imagining to what she is protesting.

Political sociology.

Maybe something as reasonable as writing a supportive political argument for the position that is in opposition to your current position on same-sex marriage.

I could see how that would get a Mormon up in a huff and spouting religious freedom concerns. Considering the other side and all the related issues would be horrific to a Mormon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2014 02:03PM by gentlestrength.

Not to mention that she didn't have to select Utah State at all, or go to college; didn't have to take that particular course; and didn't have to complete the assignment.

But apparently if Mormons don't get extra special treatment in every instance then they are being 'persecuted.'

Oh, boo hoo!

Wait til this one ends up in the workplace. Unless this person gets a job at a company where everyone is the same religion (I assume Mormon) as they are, they are in for a very rude awakening as to what the real world is all about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2014 02:23PM by blueorchid.

Ah this illustrates the arrogance of Mormonism very well. A mormon believes that everyone should listen to and respect their beliefs but that they do not and even should not ever need to listen to or respect anyone else beliefs.

So one of the commenters linked to USU policies and the professor is under no obligation to give the student an alternate assignment.

http://www.usu.edu/hr/files/uploads/Policies/403.pdf

I think the assignment was to have unprotected sex with a homeless man. What a prude.

The writer fails to note that most of the founding fathers were deity and not of the view of enforcing religious dogma on anyone which is why you have a secular state.

Therefore a secular state does secular stuff. You choose to participate that is not discrimination.

For this argument took off we'd have jeans witness kids at medical school refusing to learn how to do blood transfusions or organ donations yet still expecting to become doctors whilst incapable.

I really hope as a theist myself that all governments become more stringent on secularism.

From reading the comments, it looks like the assignment may have been to watch Schindler's List and the letter writer says it's a violation of his beliefs because the movie is rated R.

Which has a certain sense of irony about it, if you think. The letter writer is complaining that his religious freedom is being violated by watching a movie about millions of people who were beaten, starved, and killed because of their religion.

As someone who has been to Auschwitz, Birkenau, and the Schindler Factory Museum, I think the writer is an idiot and has no clue what religious persecution is. It sounds like this moron needs to watch the movie more than anyone else in his class to get a freakin clue.

R-rated movie. It clearly states in 2 Alma 58:3, "Face the wrath of the Lord thy God should idle time be spent in the watching of entertainment deemed retricted by strangers. Nor shall a guise of an assignment, education, or work justify the shirkingof the duty to avoid all restricted mayerials by strangers. Thus saith the Lord, so let it be written, so let it be done."

... write a report a THOUGH she were a ... gasp ... Democrat !!!

Oh the horror !!! LOL

1. The First Amendment does not prevent discrimination against any one given religion. Because if it did, there are some Pagans with some lawsuits to file. The First Amendment does nothing but prevent the federal government from establishing a state religion. There's no Church of America that we're all expected to be a member of. That's the extent of it.

2. What she has experienced doesn't sound like discrimination to me. She said she thought the assignment was discrimination. She's free to drop the class, do the assignment, or take the zero. She has choices. That is not discrimination. She wasn't singled out and was the only one assigned that particular assignment. THAT might be discrimination.

3. Her religious convictions must be pretty weak if one PoliSci assignment threatens her religious freedom.

Sorry, didn't realize the letter writer was female. So she's an idiot, not he :)

Reminds me of someone I knew who quit going to college because they couldn't tolerate learning about evolution and the big bang theory. It was required that she learn about if she wanted to continue on in school.

I explained that she didn't have to believe it or agree with it, but she did need to learn about it. Nope. Not going to. Dropped out first semester.

What a nut, it reminds me of the aithiest freaking out about the pledge having under god in it and kids at school having to say it.

Actually, kids don't have to say the pledge. Schools have to do the pledge, but they can't punish students who choose not to participate. They can just sit or stand quietly through the pledge while everyone else is reciting it.

I took a Literary Theory class at UVU. We were required to study and understand theories such as Feminism and Marxism and then write critical papers from said viewpoints. For example, the professor would give us a piece of literature which was filled with things a feminist would point out, and we wrote a paper from the feminist viewpoint to demonstrate that we understood the theory correctly and could follow the arguments.

We were told up front that it didn't matter if we agree with the theory, the purpose was to stretch us and help us see it from the point of view of someone who does. We would have to imagine that we did agree long enough to understand it and demonstrate our understanding of it.

One student just Could. Not. Handle. It. She was always arguing with the teacher about the theories, and not in a constructive way-- she was disruptive and made it take way way longer for the teacher to get her points across. She could not see anything from a different point of view than her own; she could not even pretend to see other points of view. For the first half of the semester she was always complaining about getting poor grades on her papers, but she wasn't demonstrating any understanding of the theories studied; she was just arguing that each theory was stupid and shouldn't be studied.

One day we studied Marxism and this student's head exploded. She ended up getting the entire class to argue back against her because she was being so obtuse and inflexible. The exercise of trying to see things from another person's eyes was too much. As soon as the class ended she walked up to the professor and announced loudly that she was dropping the class because she didn't agree with any of it. I think we all cheered on the inside.

I saw something similar to that at BYU in an introductory music class. We were studying atonality, and there were people walking out of the class because the music selections gave them a "dark feeling." They were unable to examine the music from a detached, objective viewpoint. I wonder what people like that are doing in college at all.

I was that person. And can I just say I am so, so sorry. I was a good little brainwashed conservative drone, and it still ashames me to think of the level of bullshittery I engaged in.

Obviously, I changed my mind, or I wouldn't be here.

I once worked on the premises of a major metropolitan police department, among police officers from rookies to the Chief of Police himself. (I was actually working FOR another City department, but my job was ABOUT the Police Department, so that's where I was, and those were the people I worked with.)

There were a fair number of police officers (all ranks) who were--if not LDS--religious in their personal lives, and concerned about keeping the norms of their denominations (they were all members of denominations which fall under the "Christian" umbrella).

All of these officers (and many more of the support personnel: clerks, technicians, etc.) had to work with "material" which was against their personal religious belief system. ALL of them had to be either informally or formally (with college credits, etc.) educated in every manner of "sin" possible, because they couldn't do their jobs, let alone do them properly, unless they knew the actual real life facts, and the relevant laws, and could apply those facts/laws to the situation at hand.

"Real life" is not about an LDS conception of "life." If this person cannot watch "Schindler's List," then this person is not going to be qualified to do much of ANYTHING in the real world outside of birthing babies and making sure they grow up in the LDS church.

In my job, I had constant, in-person contact with materials that would probably cause this person to faint dead away from if she saw them...but what I was dealing with was LIFE...REAL LIFE...not a Disney-ized, imitation of Life.

Obviously, she cannot handle real life...which is the JOB of an adult.

And she is trying--desperately trying--to hold on to the knowledge and "wisdom" of perpetual early (middle school) adolescence as the norm she has chosen for the rest of her adult life.

I've seen (in totally factual, close-up, detailed) photos, enough real life "things" to be totally sickened by her attitude and her religious values.

She is now, and probably will be for the rest of her life, incompetent to be considered an adult. She has chosen to be the equivalent of mentally retarded as her life norm.

She doesn't even have enough "adult" in her to literally allow herself to see a cleaned up, "idealized" version of what was once "real life." (Real life was MUCH worse than what was on the screen in "Schindler's List.")

In effect, she would make the personal choice that millions be killed (many of them in horrific ways) rather than her having to contend with REALITY by watching a much later, dramatized and sanitized re-enactment of that.

Because those who do not know (or remember) history ARE doomed to "repeat" it...and she has placed herself solidly in the "I don't care what 'they' do to others, as long as 'they' don't come for me or mine" category of people.

This is a desperately sorry way to live a life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2014 02:59PM by tevai.

"She has chosen to be the equivalent of mentally retarded as her life norm."

How about we use the term "arrested development?"

dogzilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "She has chosen to be the equivalent of mentally
> retarded as her life norm."
>
> How about we use the term "arrested development?"

I apologize.

"Arrested development" works just fine.

If the young woman in question felt a particular assignment was very inappropriate, she could have appealed to the department chair or the dean of her school. But my guess is that the professor knows quite well what is within the bounds of propriety when it comes to assignments. If it's the Schindler's List assignment as people seem to believe, I think she would have a hard time finding school personnel who would back her up. Perhaps she should have gone to one of the BYU schools.

She most likely didn't feel what she has come to know as the Spirit. Therefore it must not be True.

Perhaps write a review of Christopher Hitchen's "God is Not Great" was the assignment?! I think that would make a few TBMs heads explode.

Just from the sounds of of this young person, they are actually self ostracizing themselves from the realities of life...and missing out on a lot.

If I joined a religion that forbids me from doing math, would a professor failing me from his calculus class be a violation of my freedom of religion too? What a moron!