Prof signs email "In Him"

<p>@TatinG wrote:
“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>It is different because the conventions of letter writing say that a salutation and sign-off are supposed to set a tone which is appropriate to both the business at hand and the relationship BETWEEN the sender and recipient. If you are Paul writing to the Thessalonians then by all means use ‘Your in Christ’ or ‘In Him’. You and your target audience have a shared relationship with Christ which is also quite central to the message in the body of your correspondence. If you are this professor and you are writing to a fellow member of the vestry at your parish have at it. However, when you are writing to a student with whom you are not sharing a relationship in Christ just go with ‘Kind Regards’ or some other such friendly but neutral sign-off . . . unless the student has written begging for some kind of divine intervention on a make-up exam and your are obliging the request. ;)</p>

<p>No, not worth making a federal case over just common sense.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why?<br>
About 90% of Americans have a religious affiliation or are religious and unaffiliated
<a href=“Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center”>Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center; </p>

<p>So what? We are supposed to have separation of church and state. An oath to uphold the constitution does not intrinsically require a religious element.</p>

<p>Your argument is akin to saying that it would be fine if the default oath were openly Christian, since a majority define themselves as such.</p>

<p>I’ll bite. The secular one is inclusionary, whereas the religious one can be exclusionary. Just because there is a majority doesn’t mean they should require that of those who don’t believe. I never knew there was a secular option. Learn new things every day.</p>

<p>** from your link, the unaffiliated (16%, and 1 in 4 Americans 18-29) say they are not affiliated with any religion. It doesnt say that they are “religious and unaffiliated”. Thats inaccurate.</p>

<p>Not only that, but when required to administer the oath to someone in a “repeat after me” format, and the secular oath is not at hand, I have pleasantly informed the individuals involved that I do not say the religious portions of the oath, but they are welcome to if they wish.</p>

<p>I have always wondered if the slogan on the back of US paper money is a religious statement or an observation about the Federal Reserve</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are wrong.
The link says 16% unaffiliated (we agree on that)
Of that 16% there are 5.8% “religious unaffiliated”.</p>

<p>Read this, from your link:

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So what?
No where is there a required “religious element” in the oath.
You can take the oath on a discarded cheeto bag if you want.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah so?
You still don’t understand.</p>

<p>You can be affiliated with a religion.
You can be unaffiliated with a religion.
If you are unaffiliated with a religion you can be religious (5.8%) or not religious (11.2%).
Look at the data on the right hand side of the link. It is all there.</p>

<p>So when you said: “It doesnt say that they are “religious and unaffiliated”. Thats inaccurate.”, you were wrong.</p>

<p>Oversensitivity = recoiling if someone says “God bless you” when you sneeze. This is similar. </p>

<p>Well thats not very christian of you, fluffy. </p>

<p>Besides, of the “other religions” not all would agree with the verbiage of the oath. Even if almost 90% of the population is “religious” in some manner of speaking, lets be open-minded. Instead of the bible, why dont we place our hand on the Khoran instead. Would you be ok with that? If not, pick from any other minority religion: <a href=“Category:Religious texts - Wikiquote”>http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_religious_texts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"Oversensitivity = recoiling if someone says “God bless you” when you sneeze. This is similar. "</p>

<p>I don’t think signing an email “In Him” is anything remotely similar to saying, “God bless you” when someone sneezes. </p>

<p>Maybe this is a common one, but I haven’t noticed it before. I just got an email with the closing, “PB&J.”</p>

<p>Well, I love peanut butter and jelly, too. But in this case it stood for “Peace, Blessings, & Jesus.” </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know who you are addressing with that or what you think is not very “christian”.</p>

<p>"Besides, of the “other religions” not all would agree with the verbiage of the oath. "</p>

<p>So what? They can change it as long as they keep in bounds of the legal terms.</p>

<p>“So even if you think 90% of the population is “religious”,”</p>

<p>If isn’t what I think. It is what the research shows. If you have a problem with their findings, take it up with Pew. </p>

<p>“why dont we place our hand on the Khoran instead. Would you be ok with that?”</p>

<p>I wouldn’t care, as long as we have what we have today, the option to do something else if a person choses.</p>

<p>And as an aside, I would see this statement from their site

where they say 16% are not affiliated with any particular religions to mean some people may consider themselves spiritual, but are not “religious” per se if they don’t ascribe to a “religion”. Otherwise it sorta makes no sense… JMO. </p>

<p>

Would you place your hand on the Khoran instead of the christian bible to take an oath? Yes or no.</p>

<p>We are way off topic, but if someone was becoming an American citizen had did not want to say the “so help me God” at the end of the naturalization oath, would that be allowed?</p>

<p>I don’t know why you don’t just look at what it says instead of injecting “spiritual” and “not religious per say” into it.
It doesn’t say spiritual, it says religious.
It doesn’t say they are “not religious per say”.</p>

<p>It makes perfect sense.
I was raised a Protestant, married a Baptist, got interested in working with a local non-denominational ministry, have attended a Lutheran Church for a long while since I really liked the Pastor and some of their programs, have also attended Baptist Church on occasion. So what am I? Religious, unaffiliated.</p>

<p>I can read, fluffy. I simply question the verbiage as it isnt as clear as it should be. Just because it says something doesn’t mean the survey was flawless. IMO they could have used a better term, or added a category called “spiritual but not religious”. I did get a chuckle, though, out of the unaffiliated category falling under their “nothing in particular” label.</p>

<p>You are whatever you self identify. Probably “other christian”. So, gonna place your hand on the Khoran to take an oath?</p>