[Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 01:25:58 PDT 2007
Paul and all others on the Vision2020 list serve-
Et. al. is meant to say something like the above.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/et%20al.
I always assume that all threads are open for anyone to "jump" into. If you
want a discussion restricted to a select group, why post it to Vision2020?
Anyway, I'm sorry for objecting to you stating you were sorry for jumping
in...
Now, it's your turn... Something like "I'm sorry for making you sorry for
objecting to me being sorry for jumping in."
Then I reply "I'm sorry that you were sorry for making me sorry for
objecting to you being sorry for jumping in."
And this is simple compared to the "knots" in this book:
"Knots" by R. D. Laing
---------------------------------
Ted Moffett
On 8/25/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Just trying to be polite. You had addressed your message to "Sue, et.
> al.", which I took to mean that you intended for Sue and/or the others
> that have been involved in this particular exchange to respond. I
> realize it's a public forum, I just don't want to step on anyone's toes
> if they are explicitly looking for a specific person's response to
> this. I'm just trying to avoid the "Hey! Weisenheimer! I'm talking to
> the lady, not YOU!" class of response you might get if we were having
> this conversation in a crowded room rather than on an email list.
>
> I tend to take the Mr. Politeness Boy thing too far sometimes, it's
> true. I just think it's better to come across too polite than too
> rude. I'll attempt to be more curt in the future. I also tend to
> apologize a lot. Don't know why.
>
> Anyway, sorry about the trouble. Wait! What am I saying! I am NOT
> sorry!
>
> Paul
>
> Politeness: it's not just for the Japanese... it's also a good idea.
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > <mailto: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>
> > > <mailto: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> <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com
> > <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>>>
> > > To: "keely emerinemix" < kjajmix1 at msn.com
> > <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>
> > > <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>>>;
> > "Debbie Gray"
> > > < graylex at yahoo.com <mailto:graylex at yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:graylex at yahoo.com <mailto:graylex at yahoo.com>>>; "Tom Hansen"
> <
> > > thansen at moscow.com <mailto:thansen at moscow.com> <mailto:
> > thansen at moscow.com <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>>>; "MoscowVision
> 2020"
> > > <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > <mailto: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/20070827/b924385e/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list