<p>Looks like the train is off the track… oh my </p>
<p>Out of respect for the many who venerate the Qur’an perhaps we should agree that each person should retain the right to choose for themselves which text to hold sacred.</p>
<p>People should be open-minded and not hypocriticaL. If they are willing to take an oath on a scripture they consider sacred, but not on another’s, what kind of message is that? </p>
<p>And then I belong to a religion, but it takes no stand on deities. So don’t assume religion means God. </p>
<p>In any event, I find that sign off icky.</p>
<p>I am with @Singersdad on this. To me, the key is the pledge to tell the truth, not the sacred book being used. </p>
<p>This particular exchange above had me thinking - “In Him” can be seen as spiritual or religious or both. Could it be that those who find it not a big deal see it as more spiritual than religious? </p>
<p>Somehow I gather that spiritual is seen as the lesser invasive of the two definitions to people. For example, people tend to view the Dalai Lama more as a spiritual man than a religious one and if he did something like this it might not be viewed as forcing one’s religion on someone.</p>
<p>Just throwing this out there because I am wondering. I have no thought one way or the other. There just seems to be an interesting distinction there that I do see people take and wonder if it is at work in this thread. </p>
<p>Hear hear @awcntdb</p>
<p>It seems to me the professor was expressing his faith in a mildly cryptic way because he chooses not to be blatant about it, probably because of the uber sensitivity to such things. While we all have a pretty good idea who “Him” is, he names no one. I’ve been called him before granted without the capital letter. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aspiring citizens can leave out that part according to page 8 of the following:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/article/chapter5.pdf”>http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/article/chapter5.pdf</a></p>
<p>I don’t find “In Him” to be remotely cryptic. </p>
<p>I’m an atheist, and quite clear on what it means. </p>
<p>Look- does the signature offend me? No. I think it’s not particularly well chosen for a public communication from a secular university employee, but people will do what people will do. </p>
<p>A small observation from my 40+ years on the planet is that I have found that the people who have to tell me their religion the most are usually the people who are displaying it the least in their actions. </p>
<h1>generalization</h1>
<h1>justmyopinion</h1>
<h1>stillmyexperience</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>You clearly don’t understand what I am talking about. To work for the Census Bureau, whether temporarily–on the decennial census–or as a regular employee, working on the many other data gathering projects they have, one must be sworn. There is no bible or other book involved, one does not swear “on” anything, so your discarded cheeto bag would not come into play. The WORDS of the standard oath talk about “god.” The secular oath does not. You are perfectly correct in saying that there is no required religious element: a person sworn in using the secular oath is just as sworn in as someone using the religious version. So, since separation of church and state is supposed to be a basic principal, I ask WHY the secular oath is not the default version. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who said it was flawless? And you denied that there was a category called “religious non affiliated” so I am not sure about what you were reading.</p>
<p>Okay, I will use your logic. Just because it had a category “atheist” doesn’t mean those people were atheists. Maybe they were actually Christians and Buddhists but marked down “atheist” because they didn’t want to offend anyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Since I am “other christian” (vs. “other Christian”) according to you, I would prefer a Bible. If none were available, and the only thing available was a Khoran, I would use that.<br>
I have no idea why you care since, as I said, I am fine that people have a choice and exercise that choice.</p>
<p>Its The Koran or Quran. NOT Khoran.</p>
<p>So they, who would not prefer a bible, might not feel comfortable asking for an alternative. I never knew you could . Unlikely a newly minted citizen would.</p>
<p>And your attempt to “use my logic” is so off the mark it is laughable. Good evening to you. Enough.</p>
<p>^^^ I am just repeating what the other person said. It is also “Christian” not “christian”. But whatever.</p>
<p>No clue who or what you are repeating, but dont really care. Its quite alright.</p>
<p>You might note I freqently dont use capital letters for many words, including jewish and christian, and often skip apostrophes too. But agreed- whatever. And its per se’, not per say, if you want to split hairs.</p>
<p>EK- pulled it up on google and that was the first spelling that came up.</p>
<p>There’s not any one correct way to transliterate Arabic words. My son wrote a paper about the former leader of Libya and found about a dozen different spellings of his name. (<a href=“How are you supposed to spell Muammar Gaddafi/Khadafy/Qadhafi? - The Straight Dope”>http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/513/how-are-you-supposed-to-spell-muammar-gaddafi-khadafy-qadhafi</a>)</p>
<p>In Him is not spiritual. It refers to Jesus. That is religious. Spirituality is usually meant to reference ones inner personal beliefs or values or what have you that are not part of organized religion</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the last thing we (or this thread) needs is grammar rules for religions people might not believe in…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i understand what you are saying.
You originally commented that it boggles your mind that it is not the default.</p>
<p>I am not saying it should or should not be, only that it really isn’t mind boggling, given:</p>
<ul>
<li> The percent of people who are religious (affiliated or not</li>
<li> That it is not a requirement and there are alternatives.</li>
</ul>
<p>Things not mentioned:
- The history of the country and the traditions of swearing-ins.
- What the Establishment Clause actually says vs. “Separation of Church and State” which was a comment made by Jefferson in 1800.</p>
<p>I would expect that over time the tradition will change either as a natural evolution or a court case. But give all this, I don’t find it particularly mind boggling. </p>
<p>While we’re at it I just want to clear up that it’s Nordstrom - not Nordstroms or Nordstrom’s B-) </p>