<p>I don’t think it’s criminal or even complaint worthy just a little off.</p>
<p>I think @sally305 last post is dead on. Everything is different going from student to prof; just a nature of the beast. Same as everything is different going from employee to employer. </p>
<p>The only thing I would find troubling is if the prof is offended. I just do not get why the prof should be. I think we have gone too far in how we look at things if it is an issue if the student is at risk for putting his beliefs out there. That should have no bearing on how the professor reviews the student. </p>
<p>As I think about it more, I really think it puts the University on a slippery slope. If “In Him” is okay, then what about “Yours in Christ” or “Allah Akbar?” If that is okay then what about a prayer to start and end class? What about an anti-religious closing from an Atheist instructor? It seems to put the University in a position to have to pick and choose.</p>
<p>To me an email from an instructor to a student is a work email and it is probably better to omit the religious commentary all together. Otherwise, someone who writes a slightly more offensive email will point to this and question why it was fine for one person but not another.</p>
<p>I think it is different in a Christian College setting, or if it is a personal email. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sigh.
If you don’t know the post or the context, I don’t know why you are jumping in being negative.
(Although I did provided the majority of the posters quote in context which is what you originally responded to.)</p>
<p>Once more…the poster commented that there are people who feel threatened when hearing “praise to Allah” in a mundane context. </p>
<p>I did not say the poster was immature. Not at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For people who are hyper-sensitive a quote is as bad as a salutation.
Even if the quote is a song-lyric, since it is based on a biblical verse, they would get all hot and bothered.</p>
<p>Maybe these are the same people who get all upset when the President, in his legally required State of the Union Address, says “God Bless You and God bless the United States” or get upset when they see a John 3:16 sign at a sporting event ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>It isn’t the closing I would expect. But I have also seen closings of “Go Niners!” (during playoffs), “See ya in class” (hmmm, that is very informal), “Don’t forget to vote” (on election day). </p>
<p>^^ I love the “mundane context” qualification. (@fluffy2017 I know you are just repeating what another poster said and the mundane context is not your post)</p>
<p>My question is who gets to define mundane? I would say before 9-11 hearing “Allahu Akbar” in an airplane would have been mundane. Is it mundane now? Hearing it on an army base would have been mundane before 2009. After Fort Hood, is it considered mundane now on an army base? We have to live in the world we live in, not pretend like we live under rocks.</p>
<p>Sigh fluffy. I am on my phone as my internet is down so was able to see only snipits and assumed I could rely on what you posted as an accurate representation of what you and the other poster said. But apparently not. you are making a distinction without a difference. You said the reaction by that poster was immature. If what you posted was their reaction, I disagree with you. But I did see the sarcastic cracks in your first few posts on page one. That was enough. </p>
<p>And awcntdb, </p>
<p>Best not to make assumptions about what people might think or feel. We all know what they say about assumptions. Consolation asked politely that they be dialed back a tad. Thanks </p>
<p>Sigh.
No, that is not at all correct.</p>
<p>With regard to the poster commenting about people being upset about “praise to Allah” in a mundane context</p>
<p>You claimed:<br>
</p>
<p>When what I actually said was: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THOSE PEOPLE. The one the poster was talking about. I didn’t accuse the poster of anything.</p>
<p>Why don’t you wait till the internet is up and then you can see what you responded to at around 1:34pm?</p>
<p>(don’t know how the time zone thing works on posts on CC, so you may have to adjust).</p>
<p>Why don’t you post consistent comments? Looks like its about time to exercise that right not to have to tolerate what we find unpleasant. </p>
<p>@jym626 stated, “Best not to make assumptions about what people might think or feel. We all know what they say about assumptions. Consolation asked politely that they be dialed back a tad. Thanks”</p>
<p>I have not a clue what you mean here and what you are referring to.</p>
<p>Anyone mind if I insert a little levity into the thread? It’s loosely related to religion, at least for some people. :)</p>
<p>I drove past a cemetery today. It had a big new sign out front that said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>apologies awcntdb- it was fluffy making assumptions about what people might feel or say, not you. Around 8:12-8:15. Sure would be easier with post numbers. Miss the good ol’ days.</p>
<p>And regardless of the semantics, fluffy, if someone is unaware and frightened by someones religious comment, that makes them uninformed, not immature.</p>
<p>@fluffy2017 Maybe instead of “Go Niners!” they could have used a little more “In Him” . . . they needed all the help they could get 
</p>
<p>Saintfan, I am hereby offended by your screen name. How dare you proselytize or expect me to share your belief in saints? </p>
<p>Signed,
Heartily Offended</p>
<p>And best to be careful to avoid terms like “those people”. That can also get misinterpreted. So “those people” were uninformed and frightened. Again, makes them uninformed, not immature.</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl Hey! You mad, bro?! My handle, alas, has nothing to do with religion OR football.</p>
<p>Anyone remember the poster “hisgracefillsme”? That poster made a choice of screennames that showed a belief system, but never that recall did that poster impose her belief system on others.</p>
<p>so tell us, saintfan, since am guessing that isnt referring to NOLA football, what does it refer to?</p>
<p>Well, one thing that strikes me about this professor is that if he is going to assert his religious beliefs in routine emails to people who may well not share them, he ought to be prepared to hear what THEY think on the subject. So a student might write back about the class question, and sign himself “Yours in Rationality, John Doe.” Or perhaps add “PS I agree with Karl Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses.” Does the prof then have the right to get upset and think ill of the student? The prof is the one who broached the subject, with no provocation. :)</p>