<div> </div>
<div>Paul et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Good grief!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">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* <<a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">suehovey@moscow.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:suehovey@moscow.com">suehovey@moscow.com
</a>> > 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" < <a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen@turbonet.com</a>>><br>> To: "keely emerinemix" <
<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a>>>; "Debbie Gray"<br>> < <a href="mailto:graylex@yahoo.com">graylex@yahoo.com
</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:graylex@yahoo.com">graylex@yahoo.com</a>>>; "Tom Hansen" <<br>> <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">
thansen@moscow.com</a>>>; "MoscowVision 2020"<br>> <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>>
<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></blockquote></div>