<p>hmmmm, dietz. Not sure why, but it kinda reminds me in a weird way of those t shirts with the finger pointing to the other person that say “I am with stupid”. It goes along with the post on the first pg that said the response should be “in her”. Made me LOL</p>
<p>Please understand I am not mocking religious beliefs-- I just dont see the need for any “statement” to be made on the tshirt or in the salutation of a professor to students</p>
<p>@jym626 - You mentioned something I would never do. I would send the email to all employees. It is not up to me to assume you are not Muslim just because you have not declared so or do not dress that way. The email would even go to women who might be not allowed in the room at the same time as the men. To separate employees like that is just asking for trouble. Separate employees by task and duties, nothing else.</p>
<p>You also stated, “… the difference is that ones clothing is not a communication to another that might make the other person feel uncomfortable.”</p>
<p>Looks like a majority of public schools disagree with you because they tell students wearing anything with a Confederate flag to take it off. </p>
<p>But, I go one step further. What if my family member was killed by a Muslim terrorist? Maybe I might be very uncomfortable Muslim clothing big time, just like many Blacks in this country do not like Confederate flag clothing.</p>
<p>The issue here is there is a point where actions seen as forcing religion or something else on someone get defined too darn broadly and ensnares even the most innocent actions. To me, seeing the signing of “In Him,” as a problem is an example of defining too broadly.</p>
<p>Maybe you are beginning to understand, awcntdb. You simply would not email a message with religious overtones to someone whose religious beliefs you do not know. And as for inflammatory messages on clothing, they are a different form of communication- but if its offensive, is it better to err on the side of civility than “freedom of speech”? Can’t tell which way you swing on that. </p>
<p>And your biggest error is in assuming this was an “innocent action”. Maybe it was. But maybe it wasnt. A professor should be more broadminded and sensitive to the diversity in his/her classroom. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I am sure some people may feel like that.
My point is that those people should grow up and be adults.</p>
<p>Does growing up and being adults mean thinking or feeling the way you do? </p>
<p>^ and the logical response is, “including us.” </p>
<p>@jym626 - You seem to misunderstand the context of the email example. I was responding to the fact that all employees would get the letter about the Muslim room regardless of their religion. And if the prof signs all his of correspondences with “In Him” then he is doing the same thing - saying the same thing to all regardless of religion of the recipient. He is neither preaching or assuming, just as my email to all employees about a Muslim prayer room is neither preaching or assuming. </p>
<p>Yes, I do not assume malevolence in people. That, to me, is like fishing for an offense. Not my thing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wut?<br>
You think have a right “not to have to tolerate” something?</p>
<p>Remind me where you got that right from. Is it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
LOL.</p>
<p>You have infringed on my right to not have to tolerate your “odd” statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly do you, or the courts for that matter, know what makes a person feel uncomfortable?</p>
<p>Some students wore American flag themed shirts at school which is normally allowed. But they got in trouble for wearing them on May 5th.</p>
<p>Yup, fluffy. You dont have to tolerate some things. That is our right. I hang up on telemarketers and robocalls. I decline the opportunity to listen to a sales pitch in the mall. I dont have to tolerate it. You don’t have to tolerate any posts. You can put the person on ignore. Your statement that people should “grow up” because they feel differently from you is equally “odd”, IMO.</p>
<p>Well I guess I was wrong, awcntdb. I thought you were beginning to get it. To see that other people might be uncomfortable by what you think is innocent. But apparently I was incorrect.</p>
<p>The OP was relating an email that came to her child- ONE student. That is different from a departmental email blast. Regardless, any religious tinged message has no place in an email from the physics faculty to students. Period. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all.</p>
<p>But I do think the reaction stated in the post I was replying to is immature: “some people think Muslim phrases of praise to Allah are threatening, even if they were expressed in a very mundane context”</p>
<p>If you don’t and you think that is a mature, adult response, fine. We can agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I think that that poster (dont know where that post is or in what context is was said) is not immature. A person is sharing their thoughts and feelings. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on this description, it sounds like your son has recognized how to be tolerant of others’ viewpoints, even if he may not agree with them. He is to be commended.</p>
<p>As a (long suffering) cleveland browns fan I get offended when I receive “Go Steelers” sign off in an email</p>
<p>It does not really seem like a big deal to me, but on the other hand, a lot of people who think it is fine would freak out if it said, “In Satan.” So I think many people are inconsistent. </p>
<p>Does this work the other way? Suppose the student signs his email “In Him.” Does the prof have a right to say the student shouldn’t use that phrasing as it troubles/bothers/offends him? Why or why not?</p>
<p>And I really wish someone would address my Ecclesiastes example. Is a quote different from a salutation? </p>
<p>I think it’s different if it goes student —> professor because the student is not in a position of authority. If anything he might be taking a risk putting his beliefs out there because they might offend/alienate the prof.</p>
<p>I think a quote can serve the same purpose as a salutation–to impart personal beliefs in a seemingly innocuous way. In the example you used, I don’t think most people would find either the Ecclesiastes or the Byrds version offensive. However, if someone quoted Exodus 31:15–“Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.”–I think we’d hear about it.</p>
<p>As well you should, ohiopublic :)</p>
<p>I am still pondering why fluffy would think someone who might be uncomfortable by a statement that they might not understand and might be frightened by- that she would consider their reaction immature, but it was somehow ok for her to respond to a poster saying they were bothered by the religious overtone by saying she would pray for them (or words to that effect-- cant find the post on my ipad). :-w </p>
<p>To me wearing an article of jewelry or clothing in alignment of one’s faith is a personal thing that impacts the wearer only. You might draw conclusions about their beliefs from that but they are not personal, directed messages. A letter or message is by definition a 2 way communication where the writer is specifically addressing another person - totally different from the question of religious headwear of any kind. When
I write a note I think about what the most appropriate ending would be. Casual or formal? How closely do I know the recipient? Am I trying to impart a tone without the use of silly emoticons (Cheers or Thanks!) or just be neutral (regards or warm regards). When I write holiday cards to people who I know to be super religious I might sign off with ‘Blessings’ and I might not for other people. I am adjusting my usage to fit the recipient because of the relationship implied with the direct communication. In no way are head scarves or cross tattoos or any other such personal display a direct message to any random associate or passer by.</p>