One of the comments suggests the mom is seeking attention. I applaud this
mother for "seeking attention" because in doing so, something is being
revealed that needs to be addressed. Did the teacher want the child to lie? or
say something to please them? Perhaps "Jesus" is truly her
"Hero" - He is mine also. As we read about Jesus, we see he is kind,
thoughtful, giving, and loving, a wonderful example of men among men.
What's not to admire?
Hmm - couldn't be that the homework assignment was rejected and a different
hero suggested because the girl was unable to provide the information requested
for the assignment, could it?The assignment clearly asks (Who? Does
what? When?). The Who? and Does what? were clearly answered. The When? was
not answered at all.When? is very hard question to answer when you
are 8 years old talking about Jesus.It is possible the teacher
suggested she choose a more recent hero so she can fully provide the information
requested.Let's face it - chances are the mom would have been
no more happy had the teacher accepted the assignment and graded it poorly
because of the missing information.
The article heading on The Blaze:> Young Student’s ‘My
Hero Is Jesus’ Assignment Rejected by Teacher, Mom ClaimsSo,
this is about one teacher, in one school, telling one student, to write
something different on one assignment....Definitely a national news
worthy event. Stop the presses! Christians being persecuted!One
mother of one student claims that one teacher in one school is being biased
against her God.Well, yes. The teacher should probably not have
While on the surface this sounds appalling, I am willing to bet there is some
element to the story not being told.Was the assignment to someone
currently living? Someone she personally knew? Was her hero supposed to be a
Perhaps the assignment was to choose a real person rather than a figure from
fiction or mythology. If there was no such restriction, I might have picked
someone like Frodo Baggins or Luke Skywalker.
According to the original article linked, the family said the daughter was
forbidden to write about Jesus and was required to write something different,
while the school district said that didn't happen.How
complicated is this? Something either did or did not happen; there aren't
any philosophical or even semantic intricacies here. Why is there such
diametrical disagreement over what happened?Either the family has an
agenda and is lying, or the school district wants to cover up and is lying.Meanwhile, I hope Missy has learned the most important lesson. Next time
your teacher asks who your hero is, say Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton, and
you'll get an A+ and there won't be any controversy.
The article shows a worksheet regarding the student's plan for the
assignment. There is nothing else in evidence. The principal and teacher deny
that the child was prohibited from writing about Jesus. There aren't
enough facts for readers to draw conclusions; the obvious purpose of the article
is to stir up Christians against public education. The vast majority of the
comments at the foot of the article are bandwagon-jumping rants. What was the
purpose of the DN's linking its readers to such a careless piece of
If "she wants to write about Jesus, she should write about Jesus."Uh huh . . . or she could do what her teacher wants her to do.That's a novel concept huh?Apparently, the Blaze thinks
children should give assignments to teachers, not the other way around.And why not? Teachers have far too much authority these days . . . especially
in schools. How dare a teacher have any discretion in her own classroom! Telling
a child what to do?! That's just WRONG.I can see the situation
from the perspective of the Blaze though. The Blaze is one of the silly Right
Wing propaganda outlets I subscribe to. Yep, I get all kinds of misinformation
and bizarre opinions every day right there in my Inbox.Anyway, the
Blaze, being the Right Wing propaganada outlet it is, would be well served to
have a continuous crop of poorly educated people sent through the system,
because educated people would never seriously believe the non-facts the Blaze
turns out.Even the ads seemed geared to cause harm to misinformed
people . . . like those ads insisting that Colonoscopies are dangerous.Ah well, that's Glenn Beck for you.
Would she have gotten the same response if she had written about Buddha, Gandhi,
Muhammad, Confucius, or Zoroaster?
Found another 'victim', eh?
Lets be honest here. It's not like this is from an objective news source.
TheBlaze is owned by Glenn Beck, like him or dislike him, it's hard to
argue that the man doesn't have a specific agenda.
@Darrel"While on the surface this sounds appalling, I am willing
to bet there is some element to the story not being told."I
think that is pretty safe to assume given the original source of the article
(not to mention the "newspaper" that picked it up). Deseret News is the
"Colbuffington Re-post" of conservative Mormonism. If you don't
know what that is, look it up.
If more people had Jesus as a hero, this would be a kinder world. If the little
girl has a hero, she should never be told that he is not her hero. And Dang It,
she picked a wonderful hero. He doesn't use drugs, he doesn't prance
around showing off his body, he doesn't collect money just for the purpose
of having it. Jesus is my hero too! He died on the cross for me. What greater
sacrifice and emblem of being a hero could we want?
@LittleStream"And Dang It, she picked a wonderful hero. He
doesn't use drugs"Heh, well it depends on what you count as
drugs, he did personally supply a wedding with wine after all.
@SchneeSounds to me you don't know much about the different
types of wines available during the time of Christ. Either way if all you know
is alcoholic wines you might have a look at ARIEL Non-Alcoholic Wines who are
one of the tops wines that can compete with the tops of wines around the world.
This is a major breach of religious freedom. People have the right to identify
their heros. Students have free speech rights, and can write what they chose.
Religion can not be a banned sudject by teachers. This is very sad.
The attempts to claim that Jesus is "not real" show the extent to which
some anti-Christians have now gone. Jesus is a historical figure, better
attested to than many historical figures. The attempts to eliminate the New
Testament as evidence are more indicative of odd uses of evidentiary standards,
never used against anyone else.This is actually emblematic of how
horrible some Supreme Court decisions have been, and an attempt to destroyed the
1st Amendment. Content bans of this type by government actors are a real threat.
If the teacher wanted all the students to write on just one hero, she should
have required it before hand. Of course, that would be horrible pedagogy.
Students creativity should be encouraged. Of course I teach in Detroit Public
Schools where we post in the library a sign that says "God Said: Thou Shalt
Not Kill". W do not accept the false, KKK developed doctrine of the
speration of Church and state. That was what Justice Black was referring to when
e stuck it in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the "eternal separation of Church
and state" he had sworn hundreds to fight for when they joined the KKK. I am
not making this up, at all.
Interesting how those who do not believe in Jesus Christ belittle those who do.
They find every source that could possibly be connected to proof of Jesus
Christ's life suspect. Well he lived, whether or not you believe that
he is the Son of God is another subject entirely. There is evidence of his life
in in written history.If you do believe that he is the Son of God, like
this child does, then the "when" would be an impossible question to
answer. Yesterday, today and forever. He is infinite, having always lived and
living always. Whether or not you believe it is not the problem, to this
child or parent. They believe. Your opinion is of no value, they know something
you do not and will never know because you have chosen to close your heart.
To John Pack Lambert of Michigan,You are right, absolutely. There is no
separation of church and state in the constitution, never has been and it was
never meant to be. It was the agenda of a supreme court justice and most people
now claim it is part of the constitution. Thanks for your comment.As for
this article, it sounds like the teacher asked for a report on your hero,
period. If the teacher was not more specific, then she gets what she gets and
it should not be rejected because one's hero is a religious figure.The attempts by some to claim Christ is a "mythical" figure are sad.
I feel bad for anyone so misled who cannot see such simple truths. But, that is
their right, free agency allows us to choose not to believe the truth. I choose
to believe the truth myself.
Those who make the claims that something or someone is real have the burden to
provide proof of their claims.I know people who testify that Big
Foot is real.Others testify that the Loch Ness Monster is real.And then there are those who testify that Jesus is real.At
least some people have produced pictures they claim are of Big Foot and
My homework was rejected at the "U" because I quoted God from the
D&C. I tried to avoid it, but it was a philosophy class discussing
religious issues (The Problem of Evil and Determinism) and we were asked to
write on solutions. The only valid solution was given through Joseph Smith : ).
I guess the atheists didn't like having a solution to their biggest
complaint against God, so I was chastised in front of the class for quoting
Joseph Smith, and was given a bad grade for giving a solution to something that
has been a problem for the religious for thousands of years.
@ the "Scientist" you seem to enjoy putting the burden of proof for YOUR
faith upon others ;), but we both know there is abundant evidence that Jesus
Christ is a real person, and so, I must again ask, why don't you request
evidence or proof from atheists, or from those who claim Jesus is a
"myth" or not a "real person" or is "a figure from fiction
or mythology"? Just askin : )...again. (I suspect you know
there is none...but I would like to hear it from you again, maybe something like
"you can't prove a negative" ; ) although we both know we can, and
that it can be proven that Santa isn't real or that some documents are
forgeries (and the evidence indicates that the BofM is not) etc.) : ) still
luvya just been busy
@NeenaD&C 89:5 5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or
strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your
Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments
before him.Literally the only use of wine in the LDS church was in
the early days for the Sacrament and you want me to believe Jesus made
non-alcoholic wine? By the way, I've never had wine or any alcohol
myself.@John Pack Lambert of Michigan"KKK developed
doctrine of the speration of Church and state."That is
completely and totally false, particularly since the KKK championed integrating
their perverted views of faith based views into the law.
Even the most critical of New Testament scholars will affirm to you that Jesus
was an historical figure.To say otherwise bespeaks the priority one
places on his own predilections in the face of a mountain of evidence.
@The Scientist--so you need a sign before you can believe? The signs
are all round you if you're eyes is open.
Janet, the purpose of the article is to grab eyeballs and keep people coming
back to the trough for more. This story is troubling . . as much as a single,
solitary isolated incident with fuzzy details can be troubling in the context of
discussing US society as a whole. Which is to say, it's worth about one
furrowed brow or disapproving scowl. Off the cuff I'd say the
teacher was wrong and was begging for some pious parent to make a mountain out
of a molehill, but that's pretty much all the outrage I can spend on such
trivia. The fevered minds of so many Christians/Mormons love to read these
stories, inflate them to about 10,000 times their actual size, and add them to
the mental files they're keeping to nurture their personal persecution
complexes.People, just stop the silliness. The Liberal vultures are
not out to get you. Obama isn't cackling as he plans the next assault on
your religious freedoms. Just live your life. This little girl and her mommy
will be fine.
A Scientist:Since those who purport hte existence of something have
the burden of proof, Could you please proove to me the following:Big
Bang TheoryTheory of Evolution
Red Wings -The evidence leading to the Big Bang Theory and the
Theory of Evolution is readily available if you really cared to look it up. Note
that both are openly called "theories" even by people who subscribe to
them. A theory is "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts
or events."Are you willing to accept the "theory" label
for existence of God? Most religious folks I know would consider that tantamount
to "denying the spirit" or some other such Very Serious Sin. No; you
must say "I KNOW . . " before every statement made in church regarding
the veracity of doctrine, or you're going to looked upon askance.And that's the big difference between the two angles . . the religious
start with cart-before-horse: "I know God is real (or Joseph Smith is a
prophet, etc)" and then accept only facts or interpretations that fit that
presupposition. The scientific process (if not all scientists) is at least
honest in that is starts with observable facts and works forward to a theory.
SlopJ30:Actually, the biggest difference between the two is that
science attempte to explain the natural world around us while religion is
concerned with our origin and meaning. Science will never explain nor disprove
religion. It is not designed to. Religion is based on faith.
Absolute proof of God would negate the need for faith. Finding and nurturing
faith is one of the reasons for our existence. Hence the reason that religion
does not start with empirical observation, but with belief and hope. This does
not make one better than the other, just different. BTW, scientists
exercise "faith" in their theories all the time. And there are plenty
of "scientists" who only accept the evidence that fits with their
"And there are plenty of "scientists" who only accept the evidence
that fits with their presuppositions."Hence my acknowledgement
that the process is perfect, but followed by imperfect beings. That sounds
pretty close to the LDS church credo that "the gospel is perfect but church
members aren't."My primary point stands. Religion and faith
tend to work backwards; pure science doesn't. It requires no thought. Hey;
I had a warm fuzzy feeling, so I'm good! Does't pass the smell test?
So what; I had a warm fuzzy feeling.I guess I've never really
accepted the value of faith for its own sake. Is it better to have faith in
Something even if it's complete bunk? I guess if that's comforting to
someone, then maybe it is better. I'm sure you've known people who
absolutely believed something you found absurd. Were they better off just
because, well, at least they believed SOMETHING? I can't get there.
SlopJ30:You clearly state the impasse between "believers"
and "atheists". I can tell you that I believe, but based on
more than the warm feeling. That is part of it, but not all. There is also
experiences with acting on faith and having things work out when there was no
ratioal way they should. I have looked at the same
"evidences" against Joseph Smith as others I know, but to me there are
plenty of holes in that material. I have never hidden from evaluating
criticisms, because I want to know for myself. And I still believe.Some of us believe, some do not. Neither will end up being proven correct in
this life. However, I believe we will find out all the truth in the next....