[Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process

[Ted Moffett]

Paul et. al.

Why say you are "sorry" for "jumping in the middle?"  Any thread is fair
game for anyone to contribute to on a open public list serve, correct?  Are
we now to start a trend of apologizing for expressing our opinions?

Good grief!

Ted Moffett

On 8/25/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> (Sorry for jumping in the middle here)
>
> I understand your concerns well, since I'm not of her religion - and
> would possibly be looked down upon by her if she found out what my
> beliefs actually were.  However, if she had simply sent the message from
> home I wouldn't have had a problem with it at all.  She's welcome to her
> beliefs, and I see nothing wrong with asking a group of people that she
> feels, based on her own personal criteria, would be a good match for the
> job.
>
> Of course, since she sent it from work, it looks official.  However,
> I've seen nothing to indicate that this is anything more than a screwup
> on her part.  She is saying that  the Sheriff is a good Christian, the
> Sheriff isn't saying it in an official communication.  It looks obvious
> to me that the email was not an official communication, and that there
> is no reason to believe that hiring only good Christian men in the
> ongoing fight against all that is evil is an official policy.  So, I see
> no reason to reprimand the Sheriffs Office for this except to suggest
> that they better enforce their computer usage policies.
>
> Yes, the lady in question probably could benefit from some interaction
> with people not of her religion.  I wouldn't assume that a strongly
> religious person would treat anyone not of their religion any
> differently, though.  From what I've seen, most people that are strongly
> religious like that treat everyone kindly but reserve a certain amount
> of extra concern for other members of their own church.  It's the
> oddball fanatics that are at the top of the bell curve that make the
> news.  It's possible that if everyone that worked there was of the same
> flavor of religion (or close enough that minor differences didn't
> matter) except for the new guy or gal, he or she might see some
> prejudice or at least a lot of tedious attempts at personal conversion
> off the job.   However, that's a problem the person would take to their
> supervisor, and is not my concern.
>
> That being said, if a group of officers started using their own
> religious ideals to overstep their bounds as law enforcement officers
> then it would be reasonable to jump on them for it.
>
> I don't see this as being any different than my forwarding a job
> announcement at work to a linux mailing list, in the hopes of recruiting
> good pro-open source types to help in the fight against Evil Corporate
> Monopolies.  If I sent it from work, it could be construed as an
> official policy by accident.  However, there would be nothing wrong with
> my sending it from home.  If we did hire, say, a Microsoft fanboy, there
> is no reason to believe that I would treat him or her any differently
> than anyone else.  Differences aren't a problem unless they lead to
> actual abusive actions.  Then it's the person taking the action that is
> at fault, not the fact that there are differences in the first place.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
> >
> > Sue et. al.
> >
> > Assuming this communication was sent from Latah County Law enforcement
> > computers, personal use of work computers, whether in the public or
> > private sector, is sometimes tolerated.  But sent from a tax payer
> > supported work computer or not, this e-mail sent to a church business
> > list (this was not a purely personal communication) expressing
> > religious and gender bias (the e-mail did not merely inform of job
> > openings, but expressed a desire for "Christian men" to fill the
> > ranks) from an employee of the Latah Sheriff Dept. raises serious
> > issues that an apology and press release do not fully address.
> >
> > Expressing preference for a specific religion and gender in a
> > communication to recruit fellow employees demonstrates arrogance
> > towards and disregard of the principle of non-discrimination in
> > hiring, a principle that all tax payer supported employees of all
> > public institutions should be thoroughly aware of and respect.
> >
> > Given this employee would prefer to have "Christian men" employed by
> > the Latah Sheriff's Dept, how well would this employee work with, for
> > example, a Wiccan, atheist or Islamic co-worker?  What about a
> > lesbian?  And in the "battle against evil," will this employee be
> > capable of maintaining total objectivity on the job, regarding ethical
> > issues that are problematic for their religion, given their obvious
> > religious bias?
> >
> > I doubt it.  And this doubt extends to the objectivity that any
> > religious fundamentalist or extreme ideologue might be capable of
> > applying on the job.
> >
> > The fact this employee appeared oblivious to the ethical flaw in
> > promoting religious and gender discrimination (though we are being led
> > to believe this employee was not representing the department when
> > sending this communication?) in the hiring process for a public
> > service job clearly expresses the insular bias that is unconsciously
> > embedded in the mentality of religious fundamentalism.
> >
> > Quotes from the communication in question:
> >
> > "We currently have three open positions down in our jail," she wrote.
> "It
> > would be great to see them filled with Christian men. The Lieutenant
> > of the
> > jail, Jim Loyd, is a strong Christian and so are several of the
> detention
> > deputies."
> >
> > "You are issued a handgun and rifle, and you get to work for Sheriff
> Wayne
> > Rausch, a wonderful Christian," she continues. "Working as a cop is an
> > excellent opportunity for Christians to be at the forefront in the
> battle
> > against evil."
> > --------------------
> > Ted Moffett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/24/07, *Sue Hovey* <suehovey at moscow.com
> > <mailto:suehovey at moscow.com> > wrote:
> >
> >     Roger, et al.  When one is posting a message on a computer which
> >     belongs to
> >     the place where you work, the message better be in compliance with
> >     hiring
> >     practice and the law.  Regardless of her views, she should not be
> >     posting
> >     them on a computer that does not specifically belong to her.
> >
> >
> >     Sue
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     From: "lfalen" < lfalen at turbonet.com <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>>
> >     To: "keely emerinemix" < kjajmix1 at msn.com
> >     <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>>; "Debbie Gray"
> >     < graylex at yahoo.com <mailto:graylex at yahoo.com>>; "Tom Hansen" <
> >     thansen at moscow.com <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>>; "MoscowVision 2020"
> >     <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
> >     Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:43 AM
> >     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process
> >
> >
> >     > Keely
> >     > You and many other may disagree with her, but there was nothing
> >     wrong with
> >     > her expressing her views. It  was intended to be a private
> >     communication.
> >     > It was not an official job posting or representing the
> >     department in any
> >     > way. What is suspect is the leaking of a private communication
> >     to Vera
> >     > White.
> >     > Roger
> >     >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070825/670a7f63/attachment-0001.html