<p>*employers have the legal rights to issue TOS. * So, find an example of a public U with a policy in place that forbids identifying one’s religious perspective in written correspondence. That could be relevant to this thread about a professor. More than other agencies, military, what theoretically could happen or what some one or two people experienced, somewhere, sometime, some other context.<br>
If it is that clear, cobrat, it should be easy to find.</p>
<p>Consolation, it gets grey when it’s also cultural. Not disagreeing, just always surprised how religion draws out such strong sentiments, in general. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>France is a foreign country and is thus, not covered under the US Constitution or its laws.</p></li>
<li><p>The Establishment clause I have been arguing which requires government employees to maintain a professional appearance of neutrality towards religions and faiths is also the same one which would regard such a law as unconstitutional due to the fact it’s overly broad and encourages the government to intrude into religious/faith matters. If the US government attempts to pass such an absurd law…I’d be just as against it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>You mean like on the other 99.9% of threads on the internet? LOL.</p>
<p>Some people seem to forget common sense and WWMGD (what would my grandma do?) and instead resort to buzzwords of “establishment clause”, or infringing on my rights arguments and odd slippery slope hypotheticals.</p>
<p>Hypotheticals and theoreticals. A lot of the applications of some rules is still selective or discretionary. Some days, I rue the internet soapbox. i mind being lectured to, except when it makes sense.<br>
My grandmother was concerned with real injustices. </p>
<p>There are many policies that businesses and organizations have established because they are afraid of being sued and have the associated expenses and hassle.</p>
<p>A DMV worker is not supposed to have political paraphernalia in the office, yet the office has a picture of the President in a far more visible place than a cubicle which seems like an endorsement, especially during an election. </p>
<p>The salutation “In Him” expresses his religious views. It is no different that a professor wearing a yalmulke or a Muslim woman wearing a hijab or a Christian woman wearing a cross pendant. Particularly in public employment the employer must not discriminate and must permit and accommodate these expressions of religious belief. The exceptions are for safety i.e. a firefighter couldn’t wear full Muslim attire and still do her job.</p>
<p>A critical difference is government offices are doing so to show who the current President or other officeholder happens to be(I.e. governor, etc) and thus…their ultimate legal head in that period…not for the express purpose of favoring one party/politician over another. </p>
<p>If the presiding officeholder retires or is voted out, the newly incoming office holder’s portrait will replace his/her predecessor’s. </p>
These conversations typically go to the tangential hypotheticals and theoreticals and "what if’s (the leap to pornography and the Westboro baptist church was particularly amusing). But I don’t see these disscussions as questioning his teaching style. Perhaps one might question his judgment in signing the email that way if it was intentional, but I dont see any character assassination occurring. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>France is a foreign country, but it is still a major western country and mores do “travel” and values do get adopted across borders. Furthermore, Ginsburg and Breyer said a few years ago they look and review foreign law for guidance in interpreting our Constitutional rights, and they see no problem in doing as much. Therefore, I do not trust our Constitution is the safe defining foundation re our rights, as it used to be.</p></li>
<li><p>Given what Ginsburg and Breyer said, I do not have the faith you have in the reasoning you cite in #2.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Which is exactly what the worker in that office is showing.
Maybe, they just need to add “Who I ultimately report to” to the photo then they can plaster it all over their cubicle.</p>
<p>Oh, and to be totally back on topic, isn’t signing “In Him” just indicating who the person believes is 'their ultimate legal head in that period" </p>
<p>From wiki friends:
Religious and traditional parting phrases:
“As-Salamu Alaykum” or “Salam” (used among Muslims and Arab), “Peace be upon you”
“Shalom” (used among Jews and by some Christians), “Peace”
“Khuda Hafiz” (used among Iranians and South Asian Muslims), “God protect (you)”
“Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji ki Fateh” (used among Sikhs), “Khalsa belongs to Waheguru; Victory is gifted by Waheguru”
“Blessed Be” (used among many Pagans as a greeting or a parting phrase)
“Merry meet, merry part, and merry meet again,” is another common parting phrase among Wicca practitioners
“Namaste,” or, “remember we are all aspects of one universal soul” for some followers of different Indian religions
“In Christ” by some Christians, especially clerics
Some phrases, such as “Live long and prosper,” “May the Force be with you,” and “I’ll be back” are taken from films. Furthermore, all holiday greetings (such as “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter”) can act as parting phrases.</p>
<p>I think PG asked earlier if we would be offended if a school chaplain (like a priest or rabbi) included some kind of bible phrase with his sign-off to various folks (followers or not)</p>
<p>I would expect that. However, I would hope that he/she would select something uplifting, but not excluding. There are many proverbs, passages, etc, that are just “good messages” for any person of good will - regardless of faith or non-faith. I dont care who/what the source of the words if they couldnt hurt anyone’s feelings.</p>
<p>Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Luke 6:31</p>
<p>does that hurt/insult anyone? would a non-christian feel excluded by that? evangelized?<br>
I don’t think so.</p>
<p>btw…many schools’ latin mottos have a sort of God/faith message in them.</p>
<p>cobrat, if you get hired to write the university’s brief in the “In Him” case, my advice to you is: don’t take the case on a contingency basis.</p>
<p>
In the context of a case like this, it doesn’t matter if it’s a state or federal employee–the First Amendment applies to all governments. I think the specific facts can matter, so I think the fact that this is a college professor using this sign-off in his individual communications cuts in favor of it being protected speech. I don’t think tenure would matter too much one way or the other, although it might protect a professor at a private university.</p>
<p>mom2collegekids, I can assure you that atheists are accustomed to a daily barrage of God-talk, living in our society. I think that the phrase you cite is wholly inoffensive, in terms of its content, and not likely to be experienced as outright evangelizing.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, it is not a matter of feeling “hurt.” I am mortally sick and tired of people boohooing about being “hurt” by things of this nature. It seems that they think it is more legitimate if one claims hurt feelings than if one expresses annoyance or anger over a matter of principle. I object to religious observance being injected into public affairs. I do not think that houses of Congress should have a chaplain, and I don’t think that civic meetings of any kind should be opened with a prayer of any kind. I don’t care WHO is giving it. People are free to worship if and as they please on their own time, and that’s fine.</p>
<p>When I have had to take an oath to serve as a federal employee, which has happened twice, I refuse to take the “god” oath, and they went and got a copy of the secular one. It boggles my mind that the secular one is not the default, frankly.</p>
</p>
</p>