Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you have a criticism, please state it plainly.

 Manchu wrote:
If you have a criticism, please state it plainly.

It's not a criticism... just an observation.

In this thread, I'm rooting for you.

It's just that responding on this kind of issue involves enough "cutting through," as it were, to even get at what is really being asked.

 Manchu wrote:
It's just that responding on this kind of issue involves enough "cutting through," as it were, to even get at what is really being asked.

Sorry... my bad.

Carry on.

No, all I meant was I would rather you tell me what you meant by the psychiatrist allusion rather than making me guess or solve it like a puzzle.

When people start talking about God, I find they bring a great deal of unspoken assumptions to the table that need sorting out. For example, many atheists believe that in order for God to exist his existence must be a fact just as the existence of any material thing is factual (or not). But this assumption actually precludes the Christian idea of God from the outset (hence, begging the question) because God is not, so to speak, part of that set. To put it another way, the Creator is not another thing amidst Creation.

 Manchu wrote:
No, all I meant was I would rather you tell me what you meant by the psychiatrist allusion rather than making me guess or solve it like a puzzle.

It's how you break down someone else's statement and your retort. I meant that as a compliment.

When people start talking about God, I find they bring a great deal of unspoken assumptions to the table that need sorting out. For example, many atheists believe that in order for God to exist his existence must be a fact just as the existence of any material thing is factual (or not). But this assumption actually precludes the Christian idea of God from the outset (hence, begging the question) because God is not, so to speak, part of that set. To put it another way, the Creator is not another thing amidst Creation.

No argument from me there.

It's a debating style meant to put you into an impossible position... and that you recognized it from the start and deftly countered the premise.

My two buddies (one is a Psy. D and the other is Ph. D) are just as adept in negotiating through this topic as your are... hence, my original question. Never meant to ruffle your feathers here...

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character.

The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character?

Yes, by definition.

Manchu wrote:Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

Absolutely correct. But we NEVER, EVER say that something (reasonably) disputable is factual.

But this is where we may as well end this: I do not need to prove that god doesn't exist; I need only for you to be unable to demonstrate otherwise. Because that is the nature of reality. We do not treat everything as being real by default, because it is impossible to prove a negative. That is, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. This is true with all real things, and ignoring this fact is the rock upon which your belief system is built. You assume that because it is impossible to prove that god does not exist, then it must be possible for god to exist, and thus you have faith that he does.

However, to use god as a subject when asked for a real person, you are tacitly forcing that teacher to share your belief and your faith; because the teacher cannot KNOW that god is real, and thus must take it on faith. And that is where the problem lies, because your entire faith must now be called into question due to that (so punny...) leap of faith that you demand be made in order to not mark your assignment as invalid. Because that is the core difference: that god may exist, and that god does exist are two very, very different things. However, your faith, by definition, does not allow you to segregate those two. Unfortunately, anyone asking for a real person to be used in the assignment may not share your faith, and thus is capable of recognizing the difference between what might be and what is.

Azazel your point is well made however two observations.

1. A de facto fictional character can still be a role model. Though arguably a weaker one, but not in all cases. Some fictional characters are analogies for certain virtues that are good to emulate, or are generally positive.
Homer Simpson was given an award as America's best dad. There is value in that as the group concerned chose to highlight the amount of time Homer spent with his children, and considered the character a suitable role model to encourage dads to spend more time with their kids.

2. The choice to beleive in God accompanies the choice to include God as a role model, the teacher need not believe in God to assess the childs work assessment on the assumption that the child does and its a subjective truth.
The bible deals with 'truths' rather than 'facts'. While truth can be absolute because all facts are absolute a fact need not be known in order for it to exist. So for example you dont need to know the fact of how many hairs there are on a persons head to know they have hair.
Truth can also be subjective, one can tell the truth and be mistaken.

Thus, there is ample room for a fair assessment on a study on God without a shared premise that God is real.

 Seaward wrote:
That's an interesting example, because if someone were to say, "Provide an example of a music idol," my answer would not include anyone I wished to emulate.

Yes, but your idol would be a person, and not a guitar or flute. And if a person was to respond to the question by saying their musical idol is a clarinet, and then justify that response by citing definition 3 that you provided above, "any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion" you'd think they were at least a little deranged.

I will repeat once again the example that you keep ignoring, 'no talking during the exam'. I will explain once again that if a kid was to shout during the exam and be penalised, then any attempt to get a dictionary definition that showed shouting wasn't talking and therefore it wasn't banned would be laughed at. And yet here you are...

Aside from the gaffe on the actual definition of the word, what I find so perplexing about your point is the assumption that the majority - or even all, perhaps - of fourth graders have an intricate, nuanced theologically-informed view of God, rather than seeing him as some guy who sits in heaven.

My religious education as a child was pretty close to zero, and yet I knew that any kid that aspired to and wanted to be like God would be kind of nutty.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
That's an interesting example, because if someone were to say, "Provide an example of a music idol," my answer would not include anyone I wished to emulate.

Yes, but your idol would be a person, and not a guitar or flute. And if a person was to respond to the question by saying their musical idol is a clarinet, and then justify that response by citing definition 3 that you provided above, "any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion" you'd think they were at least a little deranged.

I will repeat once again the example that you keep ignoring, 'no talking during the exam'. I will explain once again that if a kid was to shout during the exam and be penalised, then any attempt to get a dictionary definition that showed shouting wasn't talking and therefore it wasn't banned would be laughed at. And yet here you are...

Aside from the gaffe on the actual definition of the word, what I find so perplexing about your point is the assumption that the majority - or even all, perhaps - of fourth graders have an intricate, nuanced theologically-informed view of God, rather than seeing him as some guy who sits in heaven.

My religious education as a child was pretty close to zero, and yet I knew that any kid that aspired to and wanted to be like God would be kind of nutty.

Seb, The thing is, as you well know, that there are those to whom God is fictional, as real as Zeus, Odin, and all that. Well and good, but to a lot of us, God is not only real, but the author of what is real, and does look over us and in the end, is our all loving father.

 azazel the cat wrote:
But we NEVER, EVER say that something (reasonably) disputable is factual.

You're simply restating my premise about God in general terms.

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, to use god as a subject when asked for a real person, you are tacitly forcing that teacher to share your belief and your faith

That's nonsense. At most all you are asking is for the teacher to not reject that you yourself believe this.

 Orlanth wrote:
If you don't want me to respond to you, stop talking bollocks on religion threads.

I'm happy for you to respond, but if I don't talk about the limitations or lack thereof of knowing God, then don't respond with an essay on knowing God that's meant to contradict my post.

You are only correct in that one cannot become as applesauce, but we can become as God.

To become Christlike is not to become as God. You can do all the inane squinting nonsense you want and talk about how God and Christ are the same, but there's a basic reason they're seperated in your religion. Because it makes sense to desire to become charitable and spiritual like Jesus... but this doesn't mean you become a benevolent creator of Earth.

Even if God were not considered a functional role model that is not the only reason to do so. Someone could for instance choose Neil Armstrong as an idol, it would be a solid secular choice and I doubt anyone either you or the school would have any problem with the choice. However what if the kids who chose Neil Armstrong was disabled and had no hope of ever successfully applying ofr the space program. Can he or still not still choose Neil Armstrong as a role model? A role model can also inspire ones dreams, in fact its what they best do, and that also applies to God.

That's actually a pretty good argument. I'll accept that.

You made my presence necessary. Time and again you want to redefine Biblical issues according to your non-belief and apply the twisted thinking that results as the opinions of others. I would not dare take a Buddhist quote say what it means from a non-Buddhist perspective ignoring all Buddhist teaching and insist that the garbled remains are what Buddhists actually believe. So why do you insist on doing same, and continue to do so even after the correct theology is presented because it doesn't match your opinions.

I haven't actually quoted your book in this thread, or that other one. You're making stuff up again.

Anyhow, I have zero interest in debating the finer points of your religion. I don't want to do that with any Christian, let alone you, given how imaginative you've shown your arguments to be.

What I am interested in is discussing what good, ethical behaviour is, and my experience is that this is possible between all manner of people, no matter their religious background. As such, I hold Christians and people of other religions to the exact same standard I hold other atheists, and to be honest I find atheist's give unconvincing arguments at least as often as religious people.

To the extent that we butt heads is not because of your faith, but the way in which you attempt to use it to justify positions that simply do not work, either because they don't relate to the real world, or because they are simply not moral.

So I am staying right here.

I don't want you to go anywhere. I just want you to post stuff that's better. For instance, in your point above about a role model being aspirational, despite equal achievement being impossible, that was actually really good. You started with a simple, compassionate point let that speak for itself. There was no imagination, no attempt to rationalise anything through reference to elements of Christian theology.

Do that more, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Seb, The thing is, as you well know, that there are those to whom God is fictional, as real as Zeus, Odin, and all that. Well and good, but to a lot of us, God is not only real, but the author of what is real, and does look over us and in the end, is our all loving father.

Yeah, which is fine, and something I'm not questioning. I haven't made and don't buy the fictional argument, because exactly as you say God isn't fictional for a lot of people.

My issue was with God as an idol, because I would think an idol would need to be someone you could aspire to be, someone you could actually take steps towards being like. In this sense, I'd have no problem with picking Jesus.

Now, that said, I do find Orlanth's argument about a person aspiring to be like Neil Armstrong despite having a medical condition that would prevent them ever becoming an astronaught convincing, and recognise that my argument was limited.

Orlanth wrote:Azazel your point is well made however two observations.

1. A de facto fictional character can still be a role model. Though arguably a weaker one, but not in all cases. Some fictional characters are analogies for certain virtues that are good to emulate, or are generally positive.
Homer Simpson was given an award as America's best dad. There is value in that as the group concerned chose to highlight the amount of time Homer spent with his children, and considered the character a suitable role model to encourage dads to spend more time with their kids.

I agree wholeheartedly, and in no way was implying otherwise. Quite the opposite, in fact: I even stated that some fictional characters were created for the purpose of idolizing as a method of expressing which virtues ought to be held as valuable (such as Odysseus and Achilles).

Orlanth wrote:2. The choice to beleive in God accompanies the choice to include God as a role model, the teacher need not believe in God to assess the childs work assessment on the assumption that the child does and its a subjective truth.
The bible deals with 'truths' rather than 'facts'. While truth can be absolute because all facts are absolute a fact need not be known in order for it to exist. So for example you dont need to know the fact of how many hairs there are on a persons head to know they have hair.
Truth can also be subjective, one can tell the truth and be mistaken.

Thus, there is ample room for a fair assessment on a study on God without a shared premise that God is real.

The trouble is that (and this is where I know you haven't been following my conversation with Manchu) the problem I raised (hypothetically, of course) is if the teacher gave out an assignment to select a real person whom the students idolize. In that situation, the choice of god as the subject becomes invalid, and god has not been proven to be real.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
But we NEVER, EVER say that something (reasonably) disputable is factual.

You're simply restating my premise about God in general terms.

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, to use god as a subject when asked for a real person, you are tacitly forcing that teacher to share your belief and your faith

That's nonsense. At most all you are asking is for the teacher to not reject that you yourself believe this.

Question: selection a real person you idolize and write about him/her/

Answer: not god, because god has not been proven to be real.

Problem: if god is selected because the the student believes god to be real, then it requires the teacher to also believe god to be real in order to not violate the parameters of the assignment. Allowing the student to use a character from her favourite story on an assignment that asked for a real person is making a special allowance for her based upon her religion (a big no-no), or temporarily allowing oneself to share that belief so that the parameters of the assignment are met (another big no-no).

Let me put this in a more extreme case to help remove your bias: Let us say that I am a snake handler, and I believe that, uh, Set will protect from snake venom. In fact, I KNOW that Set will protect. Will you allow me to bring a rattlesnake into class? Will you hold the rattlesnake in your arms? After all, according to you, all I'm asking you to do is to not reject that I believe this.

You see, it all comes back to burden of proof. The person making a claim to the positive holds the burden to prove the claim true.

The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

Manchu wrote:The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

In math, science and, well, everything, it is referred to as the "null hypothesis", and it is the foundation of all claims about everything ever.

Otherwise, you wind up with crap like this: I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and it is up to you to prove otherwise.

The conclusion of the positive claim being false is always the default, simply because reality does not allow for people to prove a negative; we can only disprove a positive. This is factual and true in all things, except religion, which basically is forced to go "nah nah nah nah we can't hear you", because the very definition of "faith" is a believe in something completely lacking in evidence thereof. In other words, because god cannot be disproven, people may have faith that s/he exists.

However, (and to bring this back on point) that gak doesn't work outside of church. Outside of situations where faith is the law of the land, so to speak, the null hypothesis is the default answer, because that is how existence works.

case in point:

Claim: I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ
Null Hypothesis: No I'm not.
Conclusion: unless I can prove otherwise, I am not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ

Whether or not you have faith as to me being Jesus Christ reincarnated has no bearing on whether or not I actually am. And thus, this is why it is not okay for the student to select god as her idol in a situation where she is instructed to pick a real person, and to do so demands that the teacher embrace the student's faith, which is not okay to do in school.



EDIT: always remember: a positive claim being false is a failure to negate the null hypothesis and the default of every claim to the positive; whereas a positive claim being true by default is by definition a fallacy of assuming the conclusion. Your grasp of the concept isn't completely wrong, but it is (was?) backwards. But that is the nature of faith, and there's nothing to be done about that, so I shall not try. You believe in something despite being unable to disprove its null, and thus have faith. That's what faith is, and if it makes you happy, then more power to you for it.

What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

In math, science and, well, everything, it is referred to as the "null hypothesis"

No, the null hypothesis is something else. What you are engaged in is circular reasoning.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
So I am staying right here.

I don't want you to go anywhere. I just want you to post stuff that's better. For instance, in your point above about a role model being aspirational, despite equal achievement being impossible, that was actually really good. You started with a simple, compassionate point let that speak for itself. There was no imagination, no attempt to rationalise anything through reference to elements of Christian theology.

Do that more, please.

I will choose to see the whole post as a peace offering.

Its time we were not at each others throats, lets just accept we disagree on religious issues.

 Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

In math, science and, well, everything, it is referred to as the "null hypothesis"

No, the null hypothesis is something else. What you are engaged in is circular reasoning.

No, it's just how the world works. When you're talking about existence claims the default state is no belief in the object's existence, and credible belief in the object's existence is obtained by presenting evidence that the object exists. That's the only way to get a sensible system of determining which existence claims to believe in. If you reverse the burden of proof and require proof of an object's nonexistence before you stop believing in it (even if you have no evidence that it does exist) then you have no escape from absurd situations like "prove that the space marine standing behind you doesn't exist". No matter how hard you try to prove that the space marine doesn't exist you will always fail, and the pro-space marine side will always be able to come up with an argument that it is possible, though incredibly unlikely, that the space marine exists. Even when you get to the level of "you're being mind controlled by aliens who are deleting the space marine from your vision every time you look at it" those arguments still prevent proof of nonexistence.

And of course that's how it works for everything but god. In everyday life you start from an absence of belief and only believe in the things that you've been given a credible reason to believe in. And if someone presents you with a claim that a new thing exists your level belief in that new thing is proportional to the evidence presented for its existence. This rule only stops working when you talk about god, who apparently gets special treatment because giving up belief in god is difficult.

We've already dealt with that.

Cheesecat wrote:What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

I'm not saying that at all, and I don't care for your strawman argument.

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

If you read my posts, you'll find that in no way am I suggesting someone should not hold their faith. They are welcome to, and generally, the number of gaks I give about it is exactly zero, one way or the other. However, I take a general offense to the mixing of faith with fact, and real with not-proven-to-be-real.

Manchu wrote:No, the null hypothesis is something else. What you are engaged in is circular reasoning

I cannot stress enough how incorrect you are on this. Circular reasoning is the opposite of the null hypothesis. Circular reasoning is what you get when your default position is that the positive claim is not rejected. Again, see my previous post, because I pre-emptively addressed your response.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:2. The choice to believe in God accompanies the choice to include God as a role model, the teacher need not believe in God to assess the childs work assessment on the assumption that the child does and its a subjective truth.
The bible deals with 'truths' rather than 'facts'. While truth can be absolute because all facts are absolute a fact need not be known in order for it to exist. So for example you dont need to know the fact of how many hairs there are on a persons head to know they have hair.
Truth can also be subjective, one can tell the truth and be mistaken.
Thus, there is ample room for a fair assessment on a study on God without a shared premise that God is real.

The trouble is that (and this is where I know you haven't been following my conversation with Manchu) the problem I raised (hypothetically, of course) is if the teacher gave out an assignment to select a real person whom the students idolize. In that situation, the choice of god as the subject becomes invalid, and god has not been proven to be real.

I can forsee a few big problems with that.

First, we ought to define what is real if we are going to go this far. If we have to prove who is real then to do it properly we are heading towards an existential crisis, I think thats a bit deep for ten year olds. I think its safer to accept we are real, so why not God also.

Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

Third, what would you suggest if the child chooses a real historical figure who has a lot of mythology built around them. like King Arthur, Wyatt Earp or Rasputin.

 Orlanth wrote:
Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

And it's even safer to dodge the problem entirely by requiring a non-religious figure. That way you don't have to worry at all about whether the teacher is crossing the line or not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

And it's even safer to dodge the problem entirely by requiring a non-religious figure. That way you don't have to worry at all about whether the teacher is crossing the line or not.

Good point. That would work if done before hand. If you said any role idol and someone chooses God then its a bit late.

One way to do this is to steer away from religion without looking like you are doing so by choosing from a historical subset. So for example "Class, for your homework, choose an role idol from American history that you admire and do a full page on them saying why you admire them and they are a role model to you."

Orlanth wrote:

First, we ought to define what is real if we are going to go this far. If we have to prove who is real then to do it properly we are heading towards an existential crisis, I think thats a bit deep for ten year olds. I think its safer to accept we are real, so why not God also.

Why not Batman, Luke Skywalker and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, too? Do I really need to axctually hold your hand and take you step by step through the muriad reasons why your suggestion is terrible?

Orlanth wrote:Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

You've got it wrong. God can be proved to be real, and hasn't been yet. And stating that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim is not a religious statement. If I say I am 30 feet tall, then it is up to me to prove that, it is not up to you to prove me wrong. This is the fundamental nature of the debate: anyone who thinks the burden is not on them to prove their claim to be non-false is, simply put, incorrect.

Orlanth wrote:Third, what would you suggest if the child chooses a real historical figure who has a lot of mythology built around them. like King Arthur, Wyatt Earp or Rasputin.

King Arthur is not a historical figure. Anyway, if they choose a historical figure with a mythos around them as you suggest, then that's great. No problems there. Hell, if the girl chose Jesus Christ, I'd have no qualms about it, despite the fact that I do not subscribe to any of the mythos around him. But I cannot make the claim that Jesus was not real, and thus, the person of Jesus is a valid choice for the assignment. Pick Joseph Smith, pick Lao Tzi, pick Mohammed (just don't draw him), pick whoever is or was real. It matters not. Just don't pick Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker or god, because they have never been demonstrated to be real.

 Orlanth wrote:

One way to do this is to steer away from religion without looking like you are doing so by choosing from a historical subset. So for example "Class, for your homework, choose an role idol from American history that you admire and do a full page on them saying why you admire them and they are a role model to you."

What if they choose Joseph Smith?

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

One way to do this is to steer away from religion without looking like you are doing so by choosing from a historical subset. So for example "Class, for your homework, choose an role idol from American history that you admire and do a full page on them saying why you admire them and they are a role model to you."

What if they choose Joseph Smith?

Lol. After I wrote that I thought the exact same thing, then decided to leave it and hoped no one would notice.

Back to the drawing board then, damn you dogma.

 Cheesecat wrote:
What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

Because he's a person, and if there's one thing all people don't like, it's being disagreed with and knowing that others don't share their world view. Along with dying, it's just what people do.

~Tim?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

I'm not saying that at all, and I don't care for your strawman argument.

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

If you read my posts, you'll find that in no way am I suggesting someone should not hold their faith. They are welcome to, and generally, the number of gaks I give about it is exactly zero, one way or the other. However, I take a general offense to the mixing of faith with fact, and real with not-proven-to-be-real.

Sorry I just took your stuff out of context, but yeah for the purpose of the assignment when a teacher asks for you to talk about an "idol" they're talking about someone human, I agree on that (and pretty much everything I quoted here) just some confusion on my part about whether you're trying

to claim God isn't real in general (which is a useless exercise) but it seems you're being specifically talking about god in the context of the assignment (which I wasn't aware of). Btw, I'm atheist as well.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right. I am actually. The annoying thing is all the email updates however. Between them, FIRE, and the NRA, they flood my email and my snail mail.

But think of the overtime for the NSA

 azazel the cat wrote:
What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

Is that the case here that the student was asked to select a real person? All the links from the OP just state that the girl was asked to write about her idol, or have I missed something that said the assignment had to be based on a real person?