I like saying "My pleasure" in response to a "Thank you," instead of "You're welcome."

I've had a few younger people say "Of course" to me in response to being thanked. I agree with liking "My pleasure." I too say that from time to time, and it just seems to feel right.

When I hear 'my pleasure' I expect to have just been given some chicken strips and waffle fries! But lately I have heard others say it.

"In such cases, the best and brightest students are attracted to other fields, those offering more market competitive pay rates and greater future opportunities. The pursuit of teaching jobs (as with many other civil service positions at all levels) can become a career path of last resort, attracting less outstanding candidates and ultimately, less capable people in the teaching ranks."

My head just exploded.

I hope you can assemble back the pieces.

A few things to think about - even before the pandemic, there was a teacher shortage nationwide. What happens when open positions lack applicants? Less outstanding and appealing candidates who come along get hired, those who may have been not selected in a more competitive applicant environment. What kind of applicants are attracted to open but less attractive, lower paying but unfilled position opportunities? Those not competitive in applying for better jobs, who haven't been successful getting better jobs.

What do job market forces do when open positions go unfilled? Salaries increase to attract applicants. When that happens, better qualified applicants who may have been attracted by other jobs suddenly have an interest. Teacher salaries remain low and, in the end, "we" (the public) get only what we pay for.

Here's another one - Teach for America is a wonderful organization, with the goal of getting more accomplished college graduates into education, and into schools in low income areas. Its numbers are small. Why would there be a national program run by a non-profit that receives governmental funding, to get more accomplished college grads into teaching? Because they're otherwise lacking from the ranks of new teachers. For reasons as I explained before.

TFA recruits at many of the better colleges and is flooded with applicants, so it can be very selective. I've known 5 young adults who went into the program - each completed their 2 year commitment and went on to other fields. Again, the total numbers are small, but the turnover says that many participants do not find the settings they experience in teaching, nor the career opportunities, something they wish to spend a career doing.

chisue I'm not the person who mentioned " come with".

For those of you who are offended by religion, that's your problem. Your being offended doesn't give you the right to tell me what I can, or cannot believe or say.

I don't know how this thread got so far off subject, but I hope it gets erased into oblivion.

I've enjoyed the thread, and reading all the various thoughts.

Finding "no problem" offensive is a new one to me. We often used to use "no problem" interchangeably with "de nada" when I was growing up. Neither phrase was considered offensive, at least as far I know or remember.

For those who don't like hearing "no problem" in response to "thank you" - can you tell me why? As someone who still uses it, please let me assure you I mean no disrespect. As I think about when I use it, it's often in response to minor things, where a "thank you" isn't even expected. I don't use it for bigger things which took much more time/effort.

I think I can reply. I'm not "offended" by religion, per se. I'm offended by religions that foster or teach an intolerance of others, that want to impose their views on everyone else, whose views and principles are expressed by adherents on an unsolicited bases inappropriately, in public in secular places. Each of us, not others, should be the control to ensure we don't express what could be inappropriate or disrespectful comments in the wrong places. Those who have that consideration never hear from anyone.

Most religions suggest conduct akin to the Golden Rule- it's good guidance in a heterogeneous country like ours. In addition, those who want their individual choices to be tolerated, need to make sure that they and the teachings of their religious organizations consistently return that courtesy to others. Too many don't. Part of practicing toleration and consideration for others is to keep personal and private feelings (like religion or any absence of religion) to onesself, especially when in a setting not restricted to those who share one's beliefs.

"For those of you who are offended by religion, that's your problem. Your being offended doesn't give you the right to tell me what I can, or cannot believe or say. "

Quite true. The point a lot of comments on both sides of the argument are missing, though, is that it works both ways.  The religious person has a right to use religious terminology, and the irreligious has an equal right to disdain it.  Neither behaviour is more  (or less) offensive than the other. Societies that truly value free speech have to come to grips with the notion that there is no right not to be offended, and that attempting to eliminate every phrase that might offend someone, somewhere, is both impossible and contrary to the very notion of free speech in the first place. 

So what do we do?  We back off and ask ourselves where real tolerance should begin and end.  And conflating "have a blessed day" with aggressive religious proselytism is certainly not the place to start.  Like so many phrases identified here, it's nothing more than a casual, day to day banality. I save my intolerance for those actually preaching hate speech, not for minor expressions of faith.

I think "come with" was common in German immigrants, and has made it's way around and through generations from there.

This is a fascinating discussion!

TV, I've thought about what you wrote.

For me, "Have a blessed day" can hit me the wrong way. However given that I just explained why I use a phrase that hits others the wrong way, I'm open for a debate on this point.

I don't subscribe to any particular religion nor do I identify as a Christian.

I get tired of all the religious angst that's seeped into every corner of society lately, though, and I get very tired of the popular assumption that one needs religion in order to be an ethical or "moral" person. Or that somehow, I’m missing something. I consider myself to be a good person, though of course there is always room for improvement. Humans are fallible, after all. I try, anyway.

So I often hear, "Have a blessed day" as something a whole lot more than verbal pablum. Again, I'm open to the discussion that perhaps that is my problem.

But for someone who doesn't subscribe to the dominant religion in this country, there are way too many subtle (and often not even subtle at all!) digs, shots, and outright hostility directed my way because of that.

"there are way too many subtle (and often not even subtle at all!) digs, shots, and outright hostility directed my way because of that."

Oh, you mean intolerance?

Patriceny, As a religious person, I want to be crystal clear the theology I was taught did not say or imply religion was necessary for morality. So much of the so-called religious discourse in the public square does not reflect any academic understanding of theology, philosophy or ethics. It's a very personal religion people go on about, one with little logic or rigorous thought and study.

Well said, Zalco. It's also true as a comparison that much though not all of the conduct and practices that seem extreme to those with moderate Western perspectives that are common in some Muslim countries (and with people from such places) result from cultural and ethnic practices, not religious dogma. There as here with Christians, Jews, and others with views that are extreme compared to others of their same faith, it's a common practice for extremists to cherry pick from their applicable religious texts to choose what they like, ignore what they don't like, and point to those texts as the sources of their extreme practices.

I agree with you completely Zalco, and thank you for saying that.

My best friend is deeply but quietly religious, and her beliefs about her God are fundamental to her entire life. People who don't know her well would be surprised to hear that though, because she doesn't run around citing scripture or telling other people how to life their life according to her views. She believes that what one says means almost nothing - words don't mean much, but actions do. She is the essence of a kind, thoughtful, good-hearted person and she spends her time helping humanity as best as she can, without ever making anyone else feel "less than." So trust me, I know it can be done. :)

However, religion is not a personal matter for most of the world, it is a political manifesto. That is not what you just advocated, but it is the way of the world just the same.

If your religion helps you keep your darker angels at bay, as my ethical system works to the same end for me, then good. That, in large measure, is my point. My bone of contention - with any religious or philosophic system - is the claim of exclusive moral triumph. If Jesus works for you, Buddha works just as well for others, etc. It is when devotees jockey for hierarchy of status that the serpents hatch out of the ground.

I apologize for the tangent - but that's why "Have a blessed day" hits me wrong.

Well said, Patrice. As one who was a part of the evangelical movement for many years and having worked in the past few years on deconstructing my faith, I think what you have said is of extreme importance and every word is true. Your friend who embodies her belief system through kind and conscientious action is, in my opinion, the very essence of what it means to demonstrate a living faith. One absolutely does not have to have any faith to live in that way, of course, but these days it is like a refreshing drink of cool water to encounter someone who does espouse faith in a higher power living authentically and without judgment or pretense.

"I don't know how this thread got so far off subject, but I hope it gets erased into oblivion."

Why would a discussion that is civil with many points of view being expressed and exchanged be marked by you as one that needs to be erased into oblivion?!! If someone cannot have their beliefs questioned or challenged and be able to defend them, even if just to themselves, they must not have a very strong foundation.

Thank you for saying that Olychick. This is one of the best threads here in ages, in my opinion. It's truly threads like this that keep me coming here.

Christianity is not suppose to be kept secret. IMO, not forced upon you, either, but sure not a secret or something of which you are ashamed. Most people are happy and content being a Christian and want to spread the news to everyone, it's a side effect. So, I wouldn't hold that against them.

There must be a reason that people don't answer their doors when Jehovah's witness come knocking. People aren't interested and don't want to be bothered. If they were interested they would go to church. Church should not come to them!

There are different branches of Christianity and numerous denominations within those branches. There are potentially countless differing interpretations of scripture, including a variety of beliefs as to the role that scripture plays (errant, inerrant, allegory, myth, etc.), and an equally dazzling number of differences dictated by cultural and societal norms around the world. That is one of the things I find most beautiful about faith-- the many different ways that we who choose to believe are called to reason and live out our convictions. Surely we are varied for a reason ... and surely we are called above all things to love one another, which means treating everyone we encounter with respect and dignity. I think this means adopting a high level of discretion and making an effort not to be brash and assuming when it comes to how our own faith intersects the lives of others. I also believe that other religions are a true pathway to the divine, having evolved from evangelicalism to universalism in my own journey.

I will also assert that in no way do I believe that Christians in the United States are persecuted or stripped of their rights. I think that's a politically perpetuated falsehood that only serves to illustrate a marked ignorance of a long-granted privilege.

"Church should not come to them!"

On the contrary, I think it's great if church goes to them - but I mean that with respect to worshipping their own faith, not in the sense of proselytizing. I don't think we need a dedicated "church" building to worship or practise our faith, and I can absolutely see how people of faith can be religious without "going" to a dedicated building.

"Most people are happy and content being a Christian and want to spread the news to everyone, it's a side effect. So, I wouldn't hold that against them."

I hold it against them! They should resist the urge to spread the news, in the same way I expect my coworkers to resist the urge to tell me about how happy they are being married, or how fulfilled and content they are being a parent. I don't want acquaintances, let alone strangers, telling me why they find yoga or long distance running to be so mindful......If they must share, they should be restrained and tell me once, in a non-effusive way, and then let it lie unless I ask you more.

What a beautiful and thoughtful post Kaya.

Not identifying as a Christian means that I don't feel like I should get any voice in how members of that group decide to define themselves, except of course when their definition of themselves would want to dictate how I'm required to live my life.

What you so eloquently expressed are the same basic tenets my best friend subscribes to. The world would be such a better place if only everyone agreed with you. That claim of exclusive moral triumph is at the root of so much pain and strife - dare I say evil? - in the world today.

Thank you for your kind words, Patrice. Admittedly I struggle having patience and tolerance for some of the very same beliefs I once held. Everyone is on a journey and nobody remains static, and I have to repeatedly remind myself of this.

I don’t go along with the statement that people “don’t answer their doors because they don’t care and can’t be bothered about religion coming to them” in the form of a Jehovah’s Witness.

I was thinking of this very thing today when DH and I ate lunch at a restaurant next to a full table of Jehovah’s Witnesses (I know they were because they were wearing nametags). If one had come to my door this afternoon, I wouldn’t have answered. Not because I don’t care (I am a Christian, an active churchgoer and elder secure in my own church); I just don’t want to waste a couple of hours listening to a JW proselytize that their church is better than mine.

Mormon missionaries, college-aged young people, wear name tags too.

"I hold it against them! They should resist the urge to spread the news, in the same way I expect my coworkers to resist the urge to tell me about how happy they are being married, or how fulfilled and content they are being a parent. I don't want acquaintances, let alone strangers, telling me why they find yoga or long distance running to be so mindful......If they must share, they should be restrained and tell me once, in a non-effusive way, and then let it lie unless I ask you more."

That's a bit sad to me. Knowing these things about someone (to me) is part of a friendship, of getting to know someone. I will say though that I do somewhat agree with the last sentence. Of course someone shouldn't be talking to you about religion, parenting, marriage, etc. going on like what they have is the best. That is a turn-off.

As for JW, I will say that they seem to be hard workers. We have a JW church not far from us and occasionally we will get visitors. Most often I don't go to the door (not just for JW, I don't care for door-to-door sales either), but last time I answered they were very polite when I told them I attended a church. It was a lady and a younger (teen) girl. The lady did ask what church we attended and I told her. She did leave one of their newsletters.

I think it's only normal if you are happy about something you want to share. You want those you care about to have the same.

"I think it's only normal if you are happy about something you want to share. You want those you care about to have the same."

But you have to accept that what will make someone else as happy as you might not be the same thing that makes you that happy -- that might be a tough thing, but it's really a requirement for good relationships.

I know a woman who is recently divorced and who having had somewhat of a sheltered youth in this regard has gone overboard having intimate relationships with a very large number of people. The more, the merrier. It's essentially the focus of her life. She's happy to talk about it with anyone she happens to encounter, friend or stranger, and has no filter insofar as disclosing all the particular details she's experienced recently, before you ask her to stop.

No matter what its nature, unwelcome and inappropriate conversation in public is just that.

Elmer, I hate it when people share intimate relationship details because it forces me to picture people naked against my will. It's usually not a pretty sight.

I don't have that horrible experience when someone wishes me a good day in a way that is based on joy.

For those of you who are offended by religion, that's your problem. Your being offended doesn't give you the right to tell me what I can, or cannot believe or say.

This is such an interesting thought, starting with what seems a misunderstanding. I don't recall anyone who objects to religiously-originated phrases saying that they are "offended by religion" in the abstract.

What I and others spoke about was the sense that it's somewhat insensitive and inappropriate in a non-religious situation to address someone using religious-originated comments with the assumption that each and every person addressed agrees and feels comfortable within that construct. In a multicultural country with people holding variegated religious beliefs-or none-the preference for me would be an anodyne remark with no religious overtones. Why? Because I don't want to say things that make people feel uncomfortable.

Put another way what I and others have said is that people of good will and kind hearts generally do not insist on continuing to say or do things that bother others, or make them uncomfortable, or make them feel unwelcome or not part of the community.

I believe this is one of the Christian faiths most deeply held tenets. I'm not quite sure why anyone would want to express the thoughts above and call it part of holding a Christian attitude.

"But you have to accept that what will make someone else as happy as you might not be the same thing that makes you that happy"

Well um, duh? Sorry - not meaning that to be offensive LOL, but I have a LOT of Christians in my family - including a minister. NONE of them would ever think otherwise. I certainly hope that you don't believe that most Christians think that way. I know there are a lot of crazy religious folks out there, but there are crazy versions of everything else, as well.

"but I have a LOT of Christians in my family - including a minister. NONE of them would ever think otherwise. I certainly hope that you don't believe that most Christians think that way."

In my experience, a lot of people think that way, but it has nothing to do with religion - and that's why I used examples that weren't religious. They think that another person would be happier if only they had children, or lived in the city, or didn't live in the city, or had a regular job, or opened their own company, or became a vegan, or etc, etc, etc..... But sometimes people do the same with religion (I've been told at least 5 or 6 times in my life that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Jesus Christ).

" (I've been told at least 5 or 6 times in my life that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in Jesus Christ)."

And they probably assume you believe in hell.

Can we all just agree that certain words/mannerisms push our individual buttons, but that the particular buttons we react to is a very personal matter?

So far as I'm concerned, there are no hard and fast rules, nor can there be, about what is or is not "appropriate" in ordinary social discourse. Discussing (or even mentioning) religion, intimate relationships, or the latest in makeup, or diet fads or hot cars may be irritating, boring or even offensive to one listener but interesting to another. If we are uninterested in what is being said, we have a choice of either saying so, and possibly offending the speaker, or simply ignoring it. These are the kinds of choices we face every day in our social interactions, whether we are speakers or listeners: expecting, or worse, imposing, hard and fast rules governing every one of those interactions is a stretch too far. Further, an expectation that everyone should follow fixed rules seem to me to be an abrogation of our individual responsibility to decide how we relate to those around us.

The comment "Because I don't want to say things that make people feel uncomfortable" is the comment of someone taking responsibility for what she is saying and for how she interacts with others. That to me is far better than some edict from on high about what can and cannot be said in polite society. And those that choose not to observe that advice can expect some blowback. As should anyone trying to regiment what can or cannot be said.

Really though, to be on the safe side, don't talk to anyone. There are too many Karen's out there that are easily offended. If your name is Karen, I'm sorry if my comment made you feel uncomfortable. Unless, you are an in my face Karen. If you are an in my face Karen you need to apologize to the population in general.

JT, Funny! And true.

I had an aunt who used to harp on me about my religious beliefs. What I believe is a deeply personal thing to me. I don't go around talking about it, because I'm not so self centered as to assume the world cares about it. If you want to have an honest, thoughtful discussion I'm in! But if someone wants to just dump on me, no thanks.

Anyway, my aunt used to pull the "you're going to hell" thing on me, back when i was just a youngster. This is a loud, very opinionated woman who enjoys judging others from her lofty religious perch. She seems to think because she goes to a church every week that gives her a free pass to judge others . I mostly just wanted to be left alone about it. But alas, that is not their way and so some holiday dinners were uncomfortable for me, wondering which of my alleged failings was going to be dinner conversation.

The last time she pulled the you're going to hell line on me, I replied, "great, see you there!"

My mom was furious with me, but hey they did finally stop bringing it up.

Some of the nastiest people on the planet call themselves Christians.

The thing is, the Christ never forced himself on anyone, based upon what has been written of him. WWJD? He would feed the hungry, help the hurting, weep with the weary, and seek social justice. That's pretty much the extent of what we know about who he was.

Hell? Nope. As a Christ follower, I don't believe it exists. Nor do I believe in a "devil" or other such constructs that many accept as a literal reality. There seems to me to be something about those who are unwilling or incapable of abstract thought that makes them more likely to beat others over the head with the bible.

I *know* I answered this post a few days ago, especially because it comes up in my notifications that others have commented on it: why are my posts disappearing? I say NOTHING offensive. Especially in this thread. Yet I've seen responses here that some might *MIGHT* consider offensive and they're still here. What gives?

People who tell people they are going to go to Hell for not believing in JC have no real theological basis for saying so, and have no understanding of what JC himself said about Hell. The notion of Hell as it gets thrown about in modern times is a construct that had not even evolved in the time of Christ, and what he differentiated between, (as a Historical Figure, whether you believe in God or not) was the concept of Eternal Life vs Eternal Death (nothingness), Not eternal Torture.

Bored_housewife, I see 3 posts from you. I think these threads only show a certain number of comments at a time. Then you have to go to the top of the list and click on the additional comments to see more. Yours are there.

When I was a kid, one of my favorite books to curl up with was The Divine Comedy, just for the artwork by Doré. The images of Inferno are still riveting. I don't particularly believe in Hell, but I can't help but wish some folks would spend eternity there anyway.

Bunny, when I was a kid, my parents had a blank greeting card in a drawer. On the front was a cartoon rendering of a devil with a pitchfork, surrounded by raging flames. On the inside, it simply read, WISH YOU WERE HERE. It intrigued and humored me as a six year old, just as it does now that I'm about to be sixty.

It's sad and perhaps not surprising that people who think they're living their lives with inspiration from what they believe to be supernatural being, find it funny that many people dislike the periodic conduct of and wish to be treated more respectfully by those of their ilk.

That type of behaviour is by no means limited to those who believe in a Supreme being.  It is also found among those who believe they have found a greater truth,  whether it involves environmentalism,  animal rights, refugee rights, veganism, gun ownership, or almost any brand of political thought. It is entirely possible to have reasonable, respectful and rational discussions on all these issues with most advocates but there will always be some who have a need to convert, control and dominate, and if that doesn't work, to belittle and condescend to those with different values.  It's a human quality, and the "cause" is merely the excuse for the underlying behavior.

I don't think it's quite the same. It depends on the who, where and what. I think most people expect to run into others whose political views may differ from their own. and know that their own commitment or devotion to particular issues may not always be shared by others. Religious zealots I've known and encountered tend to be more intolerant and dismissive of others having differing views, as with the "you'll go to h3ll" curses and other insults many have experienced. And such people tend to look for opportunities to confront those of different views.

Jmm1837, totally agree boorish behavior is not exclusive to any particular group. What strikes me about the religious wrath is that the being they profess to follow didn't use those same tactics. The irony slays me. If Jesus himself wouldn't have treated someone that way, what makes people think it's behavior he would condone.

Well I find that zealots of all sorts, whether it be religious, anti-religious or other, tend to be much more touchy and angry than the more ambivalent masses.

In this thread there's the "you're welcome" part, and I thought of it today in Whole Foods.

Often we need to queue up for the checkout lines. I was at the end with a not very full cart, when a 20-something guy got behind me. He only had a couple of bottles of cold ale of some sort that he was carrying in his hands. I told him to please go in front of me. He thanked me and I said "you're welcome."

As he was leaving the check-out stand and I was unloading my stuff, he turned around and thanked me again. I was thinking of this thread, and very intentionally said, "you're welcome." I could have said, "no problem," or "but of course" and meant the same thing. I wanted to acknowledge his thanks.

Then I turned to the checker, another guy in his 20s and said I would need a bag. He said, "no worries." I felt it was like, "don't worry about forgetting a bag, you can have one of ours."

What these two minor, everyday exchanges mean to me is we have different ways of saying things that essentially convey the same thing. The intent is civil, courteous discourse, as well as I-see-you acknowledgment that we're momentarily on the same path.