An open question to Mayor Loomis and Council Members:
Oro Valley Police Department’s Code of Ethics state that their “badge is a symbol of public faith and …as public trust…”. This statement indicates the OVPD sees itself as servants of the public sector.
However, at the end of the OVPD 2008 Police Awards, this quote appears,
“Honest hearts produce honest actions.” Brigham Young.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” provides for the defined separation of church and state. Quoting Young on the website of public employees appears to endorse Young’s philosophy.
Is this what Oro Valley wants to promulgate to its constituents, that the Town is guided by Young’s philosophy?
Or is Young the beacon that guides only the police department not the whole Town government?
The mixing of the religious philosophy, no matter how great the contribution of its author may be viewed, in the public area of Law Enforcement violates the US Constitutional right of the separation of church and state.
Public tax dollars pay for police salaries. Oro Valley residents represent a multitude of different religious backgrounds. As a tax payer and US citizen, I am offended by any singular religious philosophy’s endorsement by public government. It divides rather than unifies constituents.
Mayor Loomis and Council Members, please explain your position on this for all the residents of Oro Valley.
Thank you,
Michelle Saxer
Oro Valley resident
42 comments:
Ok, this is really pushing the envelope at least to me.
"Honest Hearts produce honest actions" Brigham Young
What part of that quote goes against the first amendment of the Constitution?
What part of that quote is an endorsement of any religion?
What part of that quote favors one religion over another?
From what I understand the first amendment does not prohibit any person or group from expressing a religious idea or value. Not that I think this quote is either.
The First Amendment prohibits the US congress from passing laws that establish a religion and prohibits the congress from establishing laws that favor one religion over another, among other things just talking about the religious aspect with this post.
In closing this whole country would be better off if we all followed this quote!
For the record I have no problem with God being in the Pledge of Allegiance nor mentioned on our currency.
I know God was not mentined but just adding my two cents.
And guys that first amendment is what gives us the right to assemble down at town hall and blog with LOVE ::))
God Bless America and all of us!
Here, here mscoyote, very well said.
First of all there is no such thing as an honest heart; hearts cannot think, hearts cannot feel (in an 'ethereal sense'), hearts cannot produce honesty. Only the mysterious 'soul' can embrace and promote honesty. So, the quote is, to me, a meaningless misuse of definition in any case. However, if the OVPD wants to use an expression like the one quoted as a seeming guide for their actions, then I would suggest that they examine themselves closely relative to this inference because, quite frankly, I don't think they practice fully what they preach.
Thanks OV Citizen.
Just looked up Brigham Young, and personally I probably would not have used his quote because of his being a polygamist.
But the quote itself is fine in my opinion.
It is a shame that the people who run this site and certain others would stoop as low as this in an effort to attack their hated enemy...the police department.
This is just craziness.
You should be ashamed.
Oh really, lbc09, the OVPD attacked
the Community, the OVPD doesn't seem to really care about other entities and programs; the OVPD is extremely self indulgent - and you want us to respect that? What we have here is a reaction to a 'me first and only' attitude - and that attitude is NOT America!
Oh. Brother.
Don't you people have anything better to do than post crazy "letters" over something so innocuous as that quote?
I am no fan of BY, but this quote looks harmless to me.
Geo. Washington was a deeply religious fellow, I do not see anyone complaining about a quote from him.
Whould that we could all live by the kind words expressed by any well intentioned quote.
Bravo, Nombre!
Nombe, you do make a lot of sense in your last post. My main issue is that, having experienced the actions of the OVPD in the past several weeks which in many ways I find lacking in substance and, for me, insensitive to the totality of the needs of the community which they are supposed to and sworn to SERVE, the B.Y. quote,a creed that they claim to embrace seems to go by the wayside when it comes to reality.
In addition to my statement above, let me add that there were (are) MANY in the community who are offended that there seems to be somewhat of a con job in progress relative to the the assertions that OVPD claims as fact. I have asked over and over and within several streams, [OVPD, just give me some verifiable facts which can back up your claims of need]; absolutely NO ONE has even made an attempt.
My!
Yes, George Washington may have been religious...but he is also a significant American politician...and his views are appropriate!
The point here is political/governmental is just that...relgious is another realm altogether...and SEPARATE according to the First Amendment of our US Constitution!!!
Now you have it!
There is another level beyond the words...called subtle...Who would not want honest acts?
However, beyond aspiring to honest acts, are you readers aware of the subtle tolerance of polygamy that still exists in BY's religious group? Are you following what has is happening to a splinter group in TX which was raided and now is facing court hearings for underage marriage, abuse, and dismissive attitudes towards women? Are you aware of BY's group's doctrine called, "Lying for the Lord"? Are you aware that beneath their polite manners, soft voices and family values, that the daughter whose mother escaped from TX with her children, responded that her oldest daughter chose to return to TX because she was her father's favorite of his 53, yes, 53 children!!! Do you see a disconnect there? How many siblings do you have to rival with?
Do you remember Art Siegel's head to head battle with TOV about his right to freedom of speech on this website, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution? I do...and I was appalled that in 2008 that was even an issue. I felt we were back in Nazi Germany.
The Founding Fathers fought diligently to carve out the freedoms we have. Let's keep them.
And if you have not yet made up your mind, let us not spend our tax dollars on a religious philosphy until the Town's residents have voted and decided to do so.
My fear with this new "subtlety" that all of our Constitutional rights in Oro Valley are not secure...are we going to refight what the Founding Fathers achieved so many years ago???
Have you even heard of subliminal messages that you received in ads for snacks in the movies? If not, you might want to check out the success of subtltey.
For those of you who don't immediately "see" subtlety please look beneath the surface of BY's "seemingly" innocuous comment...He is a religious figure of significant stature...Were he George Washington or Thomas Jefferson I would not be writing to you...as they are politicians in a political arena...
Explore the issue and think...
Thank you,
The author
Yes Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were profound political figures and have many great quotes, but one thing you fail to grasp is that they were deeply seeded in their faith which drove them to be the people they were.
They were as faithful as "B.Y." (seems you people are afraid to say the man's name), yet you will accept their quotes which most of have the same religious "subtelty" that Mr Young's do.
hmmmmm....
Zev-
You say that the OVPD attacked the community. How?
Also I sat at many town meetings when representatives from the FOP faught not only for the officers but all 33 "highly skilled and motivated town employees."
To the author,
So you are afraid that the police dept is in favor of or endorsing polygamy because they used a quote of Brigham Young?
I see it as somebody read the quote thought it was nice or sounded good and just used it. I would venture a bet that nobody even thought about Brigham Young being a polygamist.
I would make mention to somebody in charge of the police dinner that it was not such a great idea to use a quote from a polygamist.
Actually Brigham Young was not only a religious figure he was also a political one. Gov of Utah and sort of a radical to boot
We'll add only one comment to those previously posted.
Michelle Saxer asked that we post her "open letter" under her name.
Other than Zev, the other bloggers have chosen to comment using a pseudonym.
Michelle, on the other hand, opted to put her name to this posting.
There are those that are willing to take the abuse, while we have others that feel they can say what they will about others under the veil of anonymity.
Whether we agree with Michelle or not is not the issue. We respect her for standing tall and stating her feelings.
Thanks, Art and bloggers for voicing your opinions.
Afterthoughts...
The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics states...among other points "to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice."
Does OVPD mean only to provide law enforcement literally "to all men" and no women? Is this a byproduct of their philosophy? BY's group gives higher priority to men than women and favors subjection of women.
In a marriage where two people respect each other, this is never a question. Mutual respect is a given. In OV both men and women pay taxes and are both provided for in the US Constitution.
Will the PD protect both men and women if they subscribe to BY's tenets? or should women be concerned that their/our rights might get short shrift?
Or is this an occasion where "lying for the Lord" allows the PD to say one thing and do another without any guilt?
As I've said to Chief Sharp in person and by letter, there are events that his men have lied, even twice on the witness stand while under oath, and yet the Chief seems unperturbed at their lack of honesty. If his belief that "lying for the Lord" is consistent with his religious values, he will see no disconnect.
This troubles me.
My values and tax dollars support integrity, tranparency and honesty.
Many OV constituents campaigned vigorously last year for transparency in the Council and seated two new candidates and reseated one of the encumbents who best represented these views.
If the PD does not see the subtle violation of the "separation of church and state", a fundamental right of all US citizens, how can they enforce the Constitutional rights of Americans?
Later in this same Code of Ethics, they swear to never"...permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions." If they cannot see the bias in this quote, ie BY, how can we, the constituents, feel confident that they have the insight to conquer those preferences in themselves and protect us as equally as those who share their opionions?
If I were to use this blogsite to proseltize my religious beliefs, I would expect there to be many comments...and rightly so.
To Suiya and Ms. Coyote, BY is best known for his contributions to Mormonism...while G Washington and T Jefferson, however religious they may have been, were far better known as politicians.
Dag Hammershold, the former UN Secretary was probably a mystic, a little known fact about this man. His name resounds as a statesman.
Moses, an Israelite, Eygptian by adoption, led his people to Canaan...he is Jewish, a religious and political leader. I'm sure that many would protest if he was quoted in a public arena.
My position is constitutional...we are in OV which is in AZ which is still part of the US...Its Constitution protects separation of religion and state for all citizens of the US...let's adhere to that...Our Founding Fathers, many of whom had spiritual visions, spoke as politicians and statesmen when they wrote the Constitution. In retrospect they were visionary to anticipate this kind of discussion and provide ways to circumvent it.
They were leaders.
Wonder what others are thinking...care to share?
Michelle Saxer
The comment is disturbing because of its source, a religious extremist. The comment is disturbing because it is being used by a governmental agency. The comment is disturbing because it alludes to a person whose philosophies are not aligned with those of a Town which is subject to the United States Constitution.
I agree that women do not have equal rights, even today. I decided to google, "Lying for the Lord"--a tenet of the Mormon religion, and frankly I was appalled!!
I, too, have witnessed untrue statements by OVPD. I, too, have witnessed self-serving attitudes displayed by them. I, too, have witnessed a lack of fairness in our Town government.
Thanks, Michelle, for bringing this to our attention.
lbc09 - I used the word "attacked" primarily because YOU used it to CHASTISE what some of the posters have written in this stream and, if you can use said word for said purpose then I felt it to be appropriate in response as basically that was one of the issues I had with the PD when they CHASTISED the community in many ways at the meeting I believe we are both referring to. If you will, double standards seem to be the standard of the OVPD.Please, don't you get caught in that trap.
Seeing things in different lights makes for progressive dialogue and I cherish that we have such right to take part in it; dogmatic entrenchment leads to nowhere.
Suija thinks our 'letters' (or some of them) are "crazy"; perhaps, suija, you should take a course in semantics and 'civics'; yes, I use the term 'civics' because that is what it was called many years ago to refer to schooling on the very BASICS of our 'system', a subject, it seems that many, including suija perhaps should revisit as a refresher course. It is no longer generally referred to as 'civics' as the designation has evolved to what is deemed to be a more'sophisticated' terminology. However, in suija's case, it appears that
sophistication just isn't there and thus, for suija, 'civics' seems more appropriate.
ibc09 at least contributes relative dialogue though we may disagree in our observations and/or interpretations and I respect that; on the other hand, suija, from you I have seen absolutely NOTHING of substance
delivered from your posts!
As to the utilization of sect- religious quotes (for those who might mistake my use of the term sect-religious, understand that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, et al are religions, Hassidism, Mormonism, Sunniism, et al, are sects) as a basis for our governmental institutions' creeds, that is a slippery slope that I believe should be avoided.
Well I still think that somebody involved in the awards ceremony was assigned the duty of finding a quote and thought it sounded fine, which in itself it does and just used it
To go so far as some are going and connecting this quote with all sorts of endorsements, behaviors, etc is really sort of for lack of a better word, off the wall. sorry excellent writers, I don't have your writing skills, but I do have a gift of common sense :))
I don't think that the Poice dept is endorsing or following the doctrine of any person or religion just because a quote was used on an awards banquet brochure.
Now if you had a problem with the PD using this as their "official" mottor or slogan, then I would say you have a concern.
Some of you may belong to political parties, clubs and union groups, jdo you agree with ever thing they say or do? I bet you don't And this is not an endorsment people, it was just a quote. Poor choice of a quote I agree just like a council member used a poor choice of words when he express his concern over the layoffs and police over OR becoming a police state
Glad you guys were not around for the Salem witch hunts.
Excuse me, mscoyote, your assertion that YOU "have a gift of common sense" implies that others may not and merely have "writing skills" in place of it. I find that a bit self indulgent as if YOUR 'common sense' was more valid than others' 'common sense'. I don't knock YOU for the way you write so don't knock me for the way I (and others) might do likewise. What I found MOST disturbing in your last post was that virtually ALL of it was LOADED with mere speculation with not even a mention that it might be simply your opinion. Most disturbing, in addition, you utilized one councilperson's comment, not quoted, and taken WAY out of context, as a means to bolster your own commentary; opine, yes, but do it with substantial reasoning, please; then and only then will your
"common sense" have meaning.
(1) Michelle makes many excellent points but I'll just add my 2 cents on THIS one:
The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics states...among other points "to respect the Constitutional rights of all MEN to liberty, equality and justice."
The wording should be changed to read, "all INDIVIDUALS."
(2) As for using a quote from a religious figure, while I agree with Ms. Coyote that, "I don't think that the Poice dept is endorsing or following the doctrine of any person or religion just because a quote was used on an awards banquet brochure" I still wonder...how would everyone feel if the quote used was one from the Prophet Mohammed instead? Maybe the quote itself would be something nice and seem appropriate for the context in which it was used, but since 9/11 was perpetrated by his followers, wouldn't a quote from the Prophet of Islam therefore be offensive to some? Including those of you who are defending the quote by Brigham Young?
Zev, I was being complimentary when I said I don't have excellent writing skills like some of you have. .Sheesh, I did not say that you or anybody else did not have common sense.
If anything, I tend to give others the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe you should follow your own advice by stating at the end or beginning of every post "in my opinion", I try to do this, sorry I failed this time.
Please forgive me
Lighten up Zev!!!!!!!!!
Victorian Cowgirl,
I would not be happy if the police had used a quote from Mohammed. But honestly , unless somebody brought it to my attention I would never know where the quote or a lot of quotes originated .
Also before this post, I was not aware that Brigham Young was a polygamist, just knew he was somebody associated with the Morman church. Heck Brigham University is a prestigious university named after him.
Is the OVPD a Crypo-Morman cabal intent on issuing traffic tickets to unbelivers?
I think not.
I feel sorry for the poor employee who was tasked to come up with a quote that everyone would like.
Here is MY submission for the OVPD motto:
"No good deed goes unpunished"
-
ms coyote, opinion based on mere speculation (part of the meat of your post) makes it very weak. Certainly opinions are welcomed; after all, they make up a good portion of a blog site. If you study in depth what I write you will notice that I do use a lot speculative word types such as 'seem to', 'may', 'might', 'perhaps', and so on - I try to do this when I am stating a belief and not an absolute. I also may editorialize in a manner that I do not state as an opinion but as a generally accepted notion.
Understand that all of us, you, me, and everyone else opens themselves up to scrutiny
when writing within a stream and a lot of reaction is not in keeping with the subject matter which, for me, is okay; that is how we can learn, that is how we can progress, and that is how we might be able to dissect it all and perhaps alter our conclusions. Who knows?
I do try to read what everyone writes, I do try to make sense out of what everyone writes though I do not have to agree with what they say or even how they may say it. Even the one-line 'zingers' can have merit (but rarely).
So, mscoyote, keep on writing, keep on opining, and I can assure you that if I disagree with you for any reason whatsoever, I will let you know, and if you in turn, disagree with me or whomever, then you can let us know likewise. But, please keep speculation in perspective.
As a final note (my opinion), for me the quote is simply, in itself, kind of gooey as a message; the OVPD could have done much better!
Hi Zev, I am not basing my opinion(s) on mere speculation and I will explain why----nothing has been added by the original poster or any other poster that would make me change my opinion. No proof of anything other then some type of speculation as to what was meant or intended by a quote . If Michelle had provided some meat as you say as to why she thinks this is an issue, then we can all discuss that.
For my part I am trying to not take criticism too personally :))
Take note that I usually try to add something like in my opinon or maybe I am wrong. Also in my defense I do try to read my posts to determine how somebody else would react or read them.
Not sure if others do that or care.
So now I will ask you a question.
In your opinion do you consider the original post and content of that post to be based on speculation?
This is just a very weak excuse to take one more shot (no pun intended) at the cops.
I can't believe this was even posted. Must be slow in bloggersville.
Using Saxer logic we can only quote heathens and then only when we ensure that we are not endorsing a religious order of heathens who may be somehow supporting a conspiracy to undermine the constitution using honesty as cover and concealment.
Freedom od religion should not be used as an excuse to erase people who believed in a God that you don't happen to believe in.
Interesting to me how in this age of tolerance we can't even tolerate a quote by a religious man. I personally find his beliefs to be wrong but the very fact that he believed in a religion somehow makes something he said that was true intolerable.
That's not what the Constitution is intended to do. It was never intended to crush the voices of the religious no matter the religion.
Maybe they should have used this quote:
"To overcome evil with good is
good, to resist evil by evil is evil."
Or this:
"A man's true wealth is the
good he does in this world."
Aah, Terry, your first paragraph seems to be a twisted view of the intent of Ms. Saxer. In addition, the statement that you make referencing it as a heathen concept is absolutely ludicrous!
The Supreme Court, in 2 rulings handed down June 27,2005, both 5-4 decisions, allowed for the exhibit of the Ten Commandments in the Texas Capitol but disallowed that they could be exhibited in two Kentucky courtrooms in the latter instance determining that said 'material', displayed in the Kentucky courtrooms "violated the establishment clause of the first amendment that sets down the principle of separation of church and state". So, here we have, on the same day, similar
appeals,two seemingly opposite decisions, similar in context, but bearing the utilization of a fine line in order to make a distinction between the two.
The above was a decision of scholars, you, Terry, are not a scholar. You preach 'religious principles' and that is laudable, but don't preach that another person might be sensitive to an issue that even the Supreme Court seems not to be able to sort out.
There are all kinds of quotations that are floating around out there which at one time or another and, by certain followers, were deemed to be of godly virtue. Have you ever listened to a speech by Hitler? Do not think for one moment that there weren't those
who deemed him to be their saviour (and, no, I am NOT comparing Brigham Young to Hitler).
So, Terry, take the high road in your belief of goodness, of principle, and of Country and allow Ms.Saxer her Constitutional right to believe as she may in QUESTIONING the appropriateness of a given application of Religion vs State.
Now that being said, let me say that, as a person, I think you are truly very likable and sincere in your belief in your goodness; however, having said that, it is my observation that you have some difficulty in grasping the whole of a picture and it is thus that much of the time when an issue might be difficult, you get tangled in a web of disarray.
Mscoyote, I won't debate the first
part of your assertion as I just think you sometimes have a hard time 'getting it'. I do not attribute this to any kind of maliciousness but merely a failure to grasp certain dialogue. Now let me get to the question you posed. You asked [if I thought the original post might be based on speculation]. No, I don't believe it was; it was a series of posed questions utilizing certain facts and observations merely as reference points.Yes, one could 'read between the lines' and virtually assume the sensitivity and/or the position taken by and of the author, but much of the retorts following the post were out of kilter with the post as presented, especially as demonstrated by the first paragraph of Terry Parish's proclamation.
Zev,
I think I now read you loud and clear
When somebody disagrees with your point of view then they just don't get it, etc, etc. Or they can't understand.
Once again Zev, you attempt to belittle other posters that you disagree with.
Of course you are not malicious(wink) You say that the original post consisted of questions and facts. Well not all of it was facts , these were not all accurate but the writers interpretation of "facts"
Yes I do get a tad confused when I read line after line of double talk
Zev, honestly you need to get off your high horse and accept that not everybody agrees with you.
In the past I have agreed with you and even when I did not , you had my respect. Not so anymore.
Well, mscoyote, you have just affirmed to me that you really do not 'get it'! You still seem not to be able to read my posts in the context intended; that's not my problem, that's yours. And as to your statement that [whenever someone disagrees with me that I belittle them], that's a lot of baloney as I have throughout my postings on this site been very open to retorts and have accepted them gracefully if they might have what I consider to be simply a different point of view or fact. In fact, I have received several notes and 'nods' of appreciation and respect from several who might disagree with me philosophically but 'like' my involvement within this Site and within the Community. I have tried to be candid with you when questioned and have tried to be informative as to the whys of my perceptions. Your last sentence - what is it that you trying to convey? That I should cringe at the loss of your respect? That you are trying to 'show me up'? After having tried to understand your logic and to try to reason with you (not against you) in this stream, and then having to try to 'accept' your defensive utterances, if you don't like it, if YOU can't take it, all I can say to you now, mascoyote, is "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
Good Morning Rhett !
I get it, I just disagree with some of your logic and that is YOUR problem!
YOu fancy yourself as expert blogger and it ain't so Zev
In the past you were in MY OPINION somebody who presented their views in a logical and informative manner without putting down other posters.
IN MY OPINION you don't seem to be capable of that lately.
Not trying to infer anything Zez. Perhaps that is your problem, you can't just read something and take it as it was intended and nothing more.
If you want to cringe, be my guest!
And by the way, in an earlier post you seemed to be granting me permission to keep posting.
Excuse me Zev you are not the keeper of the blog!
You say "you don't give a damn", hahah, yeah right!!!
Zev or Rhett,
Forgot to ask you something.
You ask if I was trying to show you up. Where the heck did I do that and why whould you think that.
Because I dare to disagree with you ?
Few days ago I compliment your writing skills & now I am trying to show you up?
This is my first post on the LOVE Blog. However, I am a regular reader and believe that it serves an important outlet for the discussion of ideas and concerns for Oro Valley citizens. I disagree with Ms. Saxer's statements on several points. First, where does the Consitution provide for a "defined seperation of church and state"? Ms. Saxer is correct in her quote from her letter about the 1st Ammendment in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." I do not see where this Ammendment provides a defined seperation of church and state other than the stated purpose of no establishment of religion. Let me also state that I agree with the 1st Ammendment.
Second, as a member the LDS church, I habor "no subtle tolerance for polygamy". I also do not "Lie for the Lord." I would encourage all individuals to not take Wikipeida as your source for absolute truth on all things. My wife would be the first to tell you that she is not "subjected" as Ms. Saxer believes women members of the church are.
Third, I agree with mscoyote. I don't think the OVPD promulgating to Oro Valley citizens the philosophy of Brigham Young. It sounded like a nice quote and they used it.
I also recognize my deficiency in the spelling department. Please substitute "separation" for "seperation". My apologies.
Yes, James, you are right in that the Constitution does not contain any verbiage that includes the term 'separation of church and state'; the phrase is simply a commonly accepted metaphor, well recognized, that lays down what is believed by most to be the principle value of the first amendment.
And, your contribution and to this stream is much appreciated.
Hi James--- Welcome to the blog. Perhaps many of us can take a lesson from your comment. You can analyze a post, comment about it intelligently, find fault with some of the content, and above all, show tolerance to others.
To me, that speaks highly of you and the religion you believe in.
Thanks for partaking.
Art
"Honest Hearts produce Honest Actions" sounds like a great slogan. There are several factors here that don't fit OVPD.
First, are the officers HONEST when they write police reports?
Second, are the OVPD officers directed to be honest about what truly transpires?
Third, the source of the quote is disturbing because it comes from a religious leader and this is crossing the line, mixing religion and government.
How about a truthful slogan, "What you get from the OVPD is what THEY decide"?
Post a Comment