<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
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.<br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>keely<br><br>keely<br><br>"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."<br>-- Dr. Carrie Miles<br><br><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br><br><br>> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:20:25 -0700<br>> From: godshatter@yahoo.com<br>> To: starbliss@gmail.com<br>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process<br>> <br>> Ted,<br>> <br>> (Sorry for jumping in the middle here)<br>> <br>> I understand your concerns well, since I'm not of her religion - and <br>> would possibly be looked down upon by her if she found out what my <br>> beliefs actually were. However, if she had simply sent the message from <br>> home I wouldn't have had a problem with it at all. She's welcome to her <br>> beliefs, and I see nothing wrong with asking a group of people that she <br>> feels, based on her own personal criteria, would be a good match for the <br>> job. <br>> <br>> Of course, since she sent it from work, it looks official. However, <br>> I've seen nothing to indicate that this is anything more than a screwup <br>> on her part. She is saying that the Sheriff is a good Christian, the <br>> Sheriff isn't saying it in an official communication. It looks obvious <br>> to me that the email was not an official communication, and that there <br>> is no reason to believe that hiring only good Christian men in the <br>> ongoing fight against all that is evil is an official policy. So, I see <br>> no reason to reprimand the Sheriffs Office for this except to suggest <br>> that they better enforce their computer usage policies.<br>> <br>> Yes, the lady in question probably could benefit from some interaction <br>> with people not of her religion. I wouldn't assume that a strongly <br>> religious person would treat anyone not of their religion any <br>> differently, though. From what I've seen, most people that are strongly <br>> religious like that treat everyone kindly but reserve a certain amount <br>> of extra concern for other members of their own church. It's the <br>> oddball fanatics that are at the top of the bell curve that make the <br>> news. It's possible that if everyone that worked there was of the same <br>> flavor of religion (or close enough that minor differences didn't <br>> matter) except for the new guy or gal, he or she might see some <br>> prejudice or at least a lot of tedious attempts at personal conversion <br>> off the job. However, that's a problem the person would take to their <br>> supervisor, and is not my concern.<br>> <br>> That being said, if a group of officers started using their own <br>> religious ideals to overstep their bounds as law enforcement officers <br>> then it would be reasonable to jump on them for it.<br>> <br>> I don't see this as being any different than my forwarding a job <br>> announcement at work to a linux mailing list, in the hopes of recruiting <br>> good pro-open source types to help in the fight against Evil Corporate <br>> Monopolies. If I sent it from work, it could be construed as an <br>> official policy by accident. However, there would be nothing wrong with <br>> my sending it from home. If we did hire, say, a Microsoft fanboy, there <br>> is no reason to believe that I would treat him or her any differently <br>> than anyone else. Differences aren't a problem unless they lead to <br>> actual abusive actions. Then it's the person taking the action that is <br>> at fault, not the fact that there are differences in the first place.<br>> <br>> Paul<br>> <br>> Ted Moffett wrote:<br>> > <br>> > Sue et. al.<br>> > <br>> > Assuming this communication was sent from Latah County Law enforcement <br>> > computers, personal use of work computers, whether in the public or <br>> > private sector, is sometimes tolerated. But sent from a tax payer <br>> > supported work computer or not, this e-mail sent to a church business <br>> > list (this was not a purely personal communication) expressing <br>> > religious and gender bias (the e-mail did not merely inform of job <br>> > openings, but expressed a desire for "Christian men" to fill the <br>> > ranks) from an employee of the Latah Sheriff Dept. raises serious <br>> > issues that an apology and press release do not fully address.<br>> > <br>> > Expressing preference for a specific religion and gender in a <br>> > communication to recruit fellow employees demonstrates arrogance <br>> > towards and disregard of the principle of non-discrimination in <br>> > hiring, a principle that all tax payer supported employees of all <br>> > public institutions should be thoroughly aware of and respect. <br>> > <br>> > Given this employee would prefer to have "Christian men" employed by <br>> > the Latah Sheriff's Dept, how well would this employee work with, for <br>> > example, a Wiccan, atheist or Islamic co-worker? What about a <br>> > lesbian? And in the "battle against evil," will this employee be <br>> > capable of maintaining total objectivity on the job, regarding ethical <br>> > issues that are problematic for their religion, given their obvious <br>> > religious bias? <br>> > <br>> > I doubt it. And this doubt extends to the objectivity that any <br>> > religious fundamentalist or extreme ideologue might be capable of <br>> > applying on the job.<br>> > <br>> > The fact this employee appeared oblivious to the ethical flaw in <br>> > promoting religious and gender discrimination (though we are being led <br>> > to believe this employee was not representing the department when <br>> > sending this communication?) in the hiring process for a public <br>> > service job clearly expresses the insular bias that is unconsciously <br>> > embedded in the mentality of religious fundamentalism. <br>> > <br>> > Quotes from the communication in question:<br>> > <br>> > "We currently have three open positions down in our jail," she wrote. "It<br>> > would be great to see them filled with Christian men. The Lieutenant <br>> > of the<br>> > jail, Jim Loyd, is a strong Christian and so are several of the detention<br>> > deputies."<br>> > <br>> > "You are issued a handgun and rifle, and you get to work for Sheriff Wayne<br>> > Rausch, a wonderful Christian," she continues. "Working as a cop is an<br>> > excellent opportunity for Christians to be at the forefront in the battle<br>> > against evil."<br>> > --------------------<br>> > Ted Moffett<br>> > <br>> > <br>> ><br>> > <br>> > On 8/24/07, *Sue Hovey* <suehovey@moscow.com <br>> > <mailto:suehovey@moscow.com> > wrote:<br>> ><br>> > Roger, et al. When one is posting a message on a computer which<br>> > belongs to<br>> > the place where you work, the message better be in compliance with<br>> > hiring<br>> > practice and the law. Regardless of her views, she should not be<br>> > posting<br>> > them on a computer that does not specifically belong to her.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Sue<br>> > ----- Original Message -----<br>> > From: "lfalen" < lfalen@turbonet.com <mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com>><br>> > To: "keely emerinemix" < kjajmix1@msn.com<br>> > <mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com>>; "Debbie Gray"<br>> > < graylex@yahoo.com <mailto:graylex@yahoo.com>>; "Tom Hansen" <<br>> > thansen@moscow.com <mailto:thansen@moscow.com>>; "MoscowVision 2020"<br>> > <vision2020@moscow.com <mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>><br>> > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:43 AM<br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > > Keely<br>> > > You and many other may disagree with her, but there was nothing<br>> > wrong with<br>> > > her expressing her views. It was intended to be a private<br>> > communication.<br>> > > It was not an official job posting or representing the<br>> > department in any<br>> > > way. What is suspect is the leaking of a private communication<br>> > to Vera<br>> > > White.<br>> > > Roger<br>> > ><br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > =======================================================<br>> > List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> > http://www.fsr.net <br>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > =======================================================<br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br><br /><hr />Discover the new Windows Vista <a href='http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE' target='_new'>Learn more!</a></body>
</html>