<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in
Process</title></head><body>
<div>Ted,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>m.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 10:20 PM -0700 8/25/07, Ted Moffett wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Paul, keely et. al.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Paul wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>So, I see no reason to reprimand the
Sheriffs Office for this except to suggest that they better enforce
their computer usage policies.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>-----</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>keely wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
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. <br>
-----</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Ted Moffett</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 8/25/07,<b> keely emerinemix</b> <<a
href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>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. </blockquote>
<blockquote><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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:20:25 -0700<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">
godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>
> To: <a
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a><br>
> CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">
vision2020@moscow.com</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><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</blockquote>
<blockquote>> > 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>
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------<span
></span>---<br>
> ><br>
> >
=======================================================</blockquote>
<blockquote>> > List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> > <a href="http://www.fsr.net/"> http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> > mailto:<a
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> > =======================================================<br>
><br>
> =======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/"> http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> =======================================================<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<hr></blockquote>
<blockquote>Discover the new Windows Vista <a
href=
"http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE"><span
></span>Learn more!</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>