<p>My general opinion is that it’s weird, but not worth getting worked up about. The comment about signing off “Go Socks!” got me thinking though. I have used a similar sign off when communicating with non-business related people who I know to be fans of the same sports team at time when the team is doing well or we have discussed the topic. However - a generalized use of “Go Socks” or “In Him” makes the assumption that the recipient is on the same page with you about things (either sports of religion - if the two can be differentiated). It would bug me I think if I felt like it was part of a larger thing where everyone around made that same assumption that it was just a normal everyday way to sign off. That would make it a larger cultural assumption of the norm rather than just a personal belief spilling over or a mistake. Because it is a personal communication it is a shared thing - one gauges the salutation and sign off based on the nature of the relationship and the tone that one wants to set. It can be hard to strike the right ton now that ‘sincerely’ has kind of gone by the wayside. Options are things like warmly, regards, cheers, Thanks!, of course In Him, and more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that is nonsense.</p>
<p>I do not think that a professor has to share my beliefs in order for them to be accessible.</p>
<p>That is true whether they have different beliefs of religion, politics, global warming, conflict in the Mid East, conflict in the Ukraine, income inequality, gender inequality, boxers vs. briefs, Socks vs. Yankees, etc. etc.</p>
<p>The measure of whether or not the teacher was inaccessible was was he accessible? Since he responded to your son’s email, he was accessible.</p>
<p>People should be adult about these things and not go out of their way to find ways to generate fake outrage and fake slights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wish I could like a post twice.</p>
<p>@fluffly2017, I don’t think outrage or feeling slighted is fake at all for some folks, I just don’t think it is applicable to say that about the person who wrote the OP, who just though it was odd. Someone who is Muslim might read some of the posts in this thread and feel threatened by them, as clearly some people think Muslim phrases of praise to Allah are threatening, even if they were expressed in a very mundane context, such as in the signature of a professor in an email. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me, it’s not about rights but about good judgment (I realize some people are talking about legal rights but I have no special knowledge of legal issues). Why risk alienating someone with a personal comment in a professional communication? I think this caution should apply even moreso in an academic setting, where the speaker is someone in authority and the audience is young adults whose grades are at the mercy of the speaker. I do think at the very least, responses to this thread have indicated that some people would be uncomfortable with a prof who included an overtly religious message in a non-personal email, so even though not everyone will be uncomfortable, why not err on the side of caution and not risk it? What does it cost the prof to keep his religious messages out of his emails to his students? </p>
<p>Again, I am not saying that the prof does not have a right to do this; I am just suggesting that it would be better if he exercised his discretion and judgment and chose not to.</p>
<p>
I agree with you, but I think somebody who does this might say, “I refuse to hide who I am.” Or, he might say, “It’s my obligation to try to share my faith, as long as I can do it respectfully. That’s why I just sign “In Him” instead of “In Jesus’ name”–I leave it to the recipient to ask me about it if he or she wishes.” I agree that he probably shouldn’t do this, but this is probably the explanation, and it’s most likely protected.</p>
<p>Or maybe it’s just a thoughtless reflex.</p>
<p>I don’t know what the law or university policy has to say about his. At a state school, there might be some issues.<br>
Personally, I could not care less, and would barely write or say more than three sentences about it.</p>
<p>I was trying to figure out why this letter seemed different from wearing a yarmulka or a cross. It’s pretty simple I’ve seen thousands of people wearing religious items, but I have never ever received a letter with that sign off. So my first reaction is “What the heck?” My second I have to admit was “Wow, that sounds sexual”. (Sorry my mind is apparently in the gutter!) And my third was “Well that’s weird, but probably not against the law.” </p>
<p>I’d ignore it, after all it’s conceivable it was an accident, but if there were other things about the professor that went over the line, I’d report it as a piece of a bigger picture.</p>
<p>I would find it unacceptable that someone who proselytizes thinks its their “obligation” to try to convert me, or spread the word, or whatever he is doing that infringes upon my right not to have to tolerate that. I politely send the jehovahs witnesses away when they ring my bell, if I answer at all. But I shouldnt, as a student, have to have a professors religious beliefs put into an email to me. I agree its probably a right- just bad judgment. And as for making the professor unapproachable, flossy, I believe that was not meant literally by the OP. If a student was made to feel uncomfortable by the religious message in a communication, that student might be disinclined to reach out again to that professor. Most people avoid things that make them uncomfortable.</p>
<p>There is a point where this hide and do not preach your religion thing falls apart real fast. </p>
<p>What if there is a Muslim female professor who wears traditional Muslim clothes? This means every time students talk to her they are reminded about her religion. Her clothes could easily be seen and interpreted, as preaching her religion. Should students be offended by this? Of course not. Should she be seen as less accessible by students? Of course not. </p>
<p>Therefore, I cannot see how her clothes would be any different than signing off “In Him.” I just do not see it. Asking her to hide her clothes would be out-of-bounds. And asking the professor to not sign “In Him” would be out-of-bounds as well.</p>
<p>awcntdb,
I cant seem to easily copy/paste a block on my ipad (and the lawn guy just cut my cable while working, so I am using up the last of my data plan) but I am, hesitantly, responding to your post from 11:36-11:40 am. You mentioned that words and phrases have meanings and that communication can only occur if the meanings are agreed to. I am not sure I can agree with that. There are many people who , for example, call themselves a christian. Not being of that faith, I may not completely understand their definition, as there are many people who say things or act in ways that I would not consider “christian” by whatever generic definition I am supposed to understand. </p>
<p>As others have said, ones’ garb is perhaps self expression and an expectation of the following of her faith. She isnt foisting it upon someone by wearing a berka. She is restricting it to herself. She isnt suggesting that someone else try it on.</p>
<p>@jym626 “As others have said, ones’ garb is perhaps self expression and an expectation of the following of her faith. She isnt foisting it upon someone by wearing a berka. She is restricting it to herself. She isnt suggesting that someone else try it on.”</p>
<p>I agree. And the signature of “In Him” is not suggesting anyone else try on the prof’s religion. These are both unhidden expressions of their respective religions. </p>
<p>Well to me it does. It is not part of my religious belief system and saying that to others seems to imply one should accept it. They should not have to.</p>
<p>@jym626 - I am not sure in buy into that distinction that writing and wearing are uniquely different forms of expressions and one gets a pass and the other does not. I am thinking hard, and so just do not see the difference.</p>
<p>In my company, does having to set up a room for Muslim prayer imply that we must accept that religion? Of course not. Even if it means the company spends extra money on that room (with no equal Christian room), does it mean it promoting that religion over another? Of course not there too. </p>
<p>My point is expression via writing or clothes and freedom to practice a religion is not synonymous with forcing it on someone. </p>
<p>I do think there is a definite difference, and a boundary that is crossed, but not sure how to help you see that. If your company sets up a room that provides privacy for muslim prayer, that is different from your boss sending you an email reminding you that the prayer room is open from 2-4, with perhaps some implication that he’d love to show it to you.Thats probably not a good analogy, but the difference is that ones clothing is not a communication to another that might make the other person feel uncomfortable. If a professor sent a student s religiously tinged message, its inappropriate and a little unsettling. Seeing someone in their own garb doesnt engender the same response or feeling.</p>
<p>Again, people’s clothing choices are a personal reflection of their taste and sometimes values. A message directed at someone else–Dear, To Whom It May Concern, Fondly, Sincerely, In Him–is entirely different. The WHOLE POINT is communication TO another person.</p>
<p>I do think people do have a right not to hear certain things that make them uncomfortable (i.e., someone saying “I’d like to see you naked” to a coworker).</p>
<p>While sexual harassment is probably not the best analogy, sally, I agree with the overall message. Perhaps a better analogy might be someone saying: “I’d love to have the opportunity to help you find Jesus”. That would make me uncomfortable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I would ask for everyone to stop swearing or saying “Oh, my God!” in every other sentence. THAT is offensive to me.</p>
<p>If religious clothing is okay…then it’s ok if the prof wears a shirt to class which says ‘in Him’.? </p>
<p>Well, I suppose we could start listing all the lines one could find troublesome. There was a time when people had knee-jerk reactions to ending a letter with “Peace.” What if the prof had said, “May the Force be with You?” People would speculate. </p>
<p>One’s clothing or wearing a cross isn’t words, Some seem to be focusing on the words, ascribing unique power to them. What if the prof came to class in a t-shirt with a religious symbol or that said “God is Love” or had a citation to a Bible verse. Is that clothing, so ok? Where’s the line drawn?</p>
<p>Remember, the French have what’s called the headscarf ban, though technically it runs broader than just those. </p>
<p>I think people just don’t like being confronted with anyone else’s religion in certain contexts- unless it’s one they find acceptable. Or lifestyle choices, political sentiments, some vegetarian phrases, all sorts of things. Maybe we do need to calm down.</p>
<p>(some x-post.)</p>