[Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process
Mark Solomon
msolomon at moscow.com
Sun Aug 26 05:51:36 PDT 2007
Ted,
It's been a while since I helped write the county's personnel policy
manual but I believe language similar to what you wrote is included.
Each new employee must indicate they have read the policy with their
signature.
m.
At 10:20 PM -0700 8/25/07, Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>Paul, keely et. al.
>
>Anyone hired for a public sector tax supported job should be
>explicitly informed before they assume their public duties that any
>form of discrimination or harassment, either toward fellow employees
>or the public, or in the hiring process, based on race, gender,
>religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation, is not acceptable.
>Liability issues alone should justify that this explicit and clearly
>emphasised policy be memorized by any new employee. Was this
>employee clearly informed of such a policy? If you can't answer
>this question authoritatively, you both need to reconsider the slant
>of your statements. If she was clearly informed of such a policy,
>then the LCSO is engaging in the proper orientation process for new
>employees, and she chose to ignore the policy or forgot. If she was
>not informed of such a policy, make your own assessment of how well
>she was informed/educated about critical civil rights and
>discrimination issues in the hiring process by LCSO.
>
>Paul wrote:
>
>So, I see no reason to reprimand the Sheriffs Office for this except
>to suggest that they better enforce their computer usage policies.
>-----
>keely wrote:
>
>I agree with him that there is no cause at all for blaming the LCSO
>for one young woman's immature, poorly-thought-out communique.
>-----
>Ted Moffett
>
>On 8/25/07, keely emerinemix
><<mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
>
>Once again, Paul makes a number of excellent points. I agree with
>him that there is no cause at all for blaming the LCSO for one young
>woman's immature, poorly-thought-out communique. I don't see any
>evidence that she represents anyone other than herself; to the
>extent that emailing anyone from work is a representation of that
>specific workplace, then I would say that all it truly represents is
>the likelihood of hiring less-than-fully-mature people for
>entry-level jobs -- a practice that speaks to the job market,
>perhaps, but not solely to the Sheriff's Office.
>
>But Paul's most important point -- at least to me -- is that the
>young woman would benefit from continued exposure to people Not Like
>Her: arreligious people, anti-religious people, older and younger
>people, bad people and good people. One of my biggest objections to
>homeschooling and/or private religious education is that it's easy
>to become convinced that the world is made up of Us and Them, "Us"
>being represented by those who are Just Like Me, and "Them"
>represented by the "Other" that one's own group needs in order to
>solidify its ranks. Some homeschoolers and private schoolers are
>intentional about allowing their children to grow up around all
>sorts of different people. Most, in my experience, are not. And
>prolonged exposure to church and societal doctrines that are
>especially restrictive when talking about gender roles, morality,
>race, class, and culture more easily results in the kind of
>small-world thinking that appears to have taken hold of this
>particular sheriff's dispatcher.
>
>She shouldn't lose her job; I'm sure whatever official reprimand she
>got will suffice. I'd rather she take a few courses at a secular
>university, subscribe to a magazine whose viewpoint she's inclined
>to disagree with, and purpose to cast her net of social
>acquaintances in seas wider than what she's used to. I give that
>advice to my own nieces and it's what I would suggest for her or any
>other young person who's grown up in a world much smaller than the
>one eventually faced in adulthood. She would be a more valuable
>asset to her employer, and the testimony of the Gospel wouldn't once
>again be marred, even if unintentionally, by someone with an
>undoubtedly good heart and an ineffably narrow resume of experience,
>perspective, and education.
>
>I will put my money where my mouth is on this one and gift her with
>a free one-year membership to Christians for Biblical Equality. If
>she is reading this, or if someone who knows her is, all they have
>to do is email me offline.
>
>keely
>
>keely
>
>"Patriarchy and its abuses, including the alienation of woman and
>man from each other, resulted from the material demands of life
>outside of the Creator's abundance, a state God never intended
>human beings to experience in the first place ... Redemption means
>turning over the order of things in the fallen world."
>-- Dr. Carrie Miles
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:20:25 -0700
>> From: <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> godshatter at yahoo.com
>> To: <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>starbliss at gmail.com
>> CC: <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process
>>
>> 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* <<mailto:suehovey at moscow.com> suehovey at moscow.com
>> > <mailto:<mailto:suehovey at moscow.com>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" < <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>lfalen at turbonet.com
>><mailto:<mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>lfalen at turbonet.com>>
>> > To: "keely emerinemix" < <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>kjajmix1 at msn.com
>> > <mailto:<mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com> kjajmix1 at msn.com>>; "Debbie Gray"
>> > < <mailto:graylex at yahoo.com>graylex at yahoo.com
>><mailto:<mailto:graylex at yahoo.com> graylex at yahoo.com>>; "Tom
>>Hansen" <
>> > <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>thansen at moscow.com
>><mailto:<mailto:thansen at moscow.com> thansen at moscow.com>>;
>>"MoscowVision 2020"
>> > <<mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:
>><mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>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
>> > >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> > <http://www.fsr.net/> http://www.fsr.net
>> > mailto:<mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> > =======================================================
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> <http://www.fsr.net/> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:<mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
>
>Discover the new Windows Vista
><http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE>Learn
>more!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070826/bfb48b02/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list