[Vision2020] Religion Has No Part in Process

[Paul Rumelhart]

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> > 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>>
>     To: "keely emerinemix" < kjajmix1 at msn.com
>     <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>>; "Debbie Gray"
>     < graylex at yahoo.com <mailto:graylex at yahoo.com>>; "Tom Hansen" <
>     thansen at moscow.com <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>>; "MoscowVision 2020"
>     <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
>     >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================