Conley no stranger to Con-Con ‘sleight of hand’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

NoConConAdThere is no greater irony than Patrick Conley claiming that opposition to a Constitutional Convention is rooted in “political paranoia,” (“History shows there is no need to fear Constitutional Convention,” October 31, 2014) while extolling the purity of the Constitutional Convention process. By Mr. Conley’s own confession, it was only through “sleight of hand” – his own – that “the most significant substantive alteration ever made in the state constitution” occurred.

In his book, “Rhode Island in Rhetoric and Reflection,” Mr. Conley notes that the 1973 Constitutional Convention was to be limited to “the consideration of certain definite topics.” Feeling he knew better than the people who made the rules, Mr. Conley determined the convention should, in fact, force the electorate to decide every ten years whether or not a convention should be held. Because this was not on the list of approved topics, Mr. Conley stretched the rules of the convention in defining his amendment – claiming it was a revision of election law – placed a misleading title on his document, and bypassed the agreed-upon rules of the Convention. Yet, Mr. Conley promises us that this cannot happen again, with much more dire results for civil rights and civil liberties.

In addition, we question Mr. Conley’s assertion that he “did not see any inordinate influence from” legislators and special interests during his participation in the 1986 convention. Again, in his own book, Mr. Conley writes of being chosen as general counsel for the 1986 convention by convention president Keven McKenna, but that “an irate Speaker [of the House] Smith called President McKenna with an ultimatum: either general counsel Conley goes or your convention funding goes. Thus ended, at least for now, my paid career as a constitutional reformer.” Mr. Conley promises a convention similar to that in 1986. As do we; the difference is that we have provided Rhode Islanders with the truth about the 1986 convention, and what a 2016 constitutional convention would be.

Mr. Conley’s tales of the “sleight of hand” and politics run amok of the Constitutional Convention are just one more reason voters should reject Question 3.

Hillary Davis – Policy Associate at American Civil Liberties Union, Rhode Island Affiliate

Conley’s history wrong on Con-Con, civil rights


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

NoConConAdThose advocating for a Constitutional Convention who are saying that there is no threat to human and civil rights ignore our history. The pledges of these reformers ring hollow to those involved in the fight to protect women’s reproductive health care decisions. By dismissing this concern, “So much for conventions as threats to civil rights” (Patrick Conley “History shows: Don’t fear Convention”, October 31), Conley forgets what dedicated advocates for women’s equity never can.

The 1986 Convention proposed two amendments to the electorate that treat women as though they are incompetent to make medical decisions without the interference of the state. The “fetal personhood” amendment was rejected by the public, a story told as a testament to the wisdom of RI voters. The second and more insidious amendment was packaged as expanding free speech rights, yet included this line now in our Constitution: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.” This is why women’s health advocates are concerned. The 1986 convention took away rights recognized as protected by the US Constitution.

This is not “political paranoia or constitutional constipation” as Conley would lead you to believe. Organizations such as the ACLU, RI National Organization of Women, the RI Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers and Planned Parenthood are hardly the political insiders concerned about losing influence in the General Assembly. If we want to reform our system of government, let’s do it in a way that does not pose a risk to people’s rights.

Jamie Rhodes of Warwick, is also the Rhode Island Policy Director for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England.

Historian laureate misleads on Rhode Island Flag history


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
664px-Flag_of_Rhode_Island_1882-1897.svg
RI Flag from 1882-1897: Hopeless?

Rhode Island historian laureate Patrick Conley’s June 14th op-ed is written with the purpose of misleading rather than edifying the public about the origins and meanings of Rhode Island’s state flag. Conley is intent on casting the flag as a “prayer banner,” borrowing that term from the not-so-recent court case involving my niece Jessica Ahlquist and an actual prayer affixed to the wall of her Cranston public high school. The use of such a loaded term should be our first hint that Conley is more interested in polemics than history.

Rhode Island’s state flag is not a prayer banner and trying to present it as one is foolish. The flag is inscribed with one word “Hope” which as a prayer seems rather short and inadequate. Conley also makes much of the fact that our flag has an anchor on it, another word found in the Bible. Conley is correct that the words “Hope” and “Anchor” are found in the Bible, along with a slew of other words in common usage, such as love, gold and jackass, which perhaps for space limitations were omitted from the state flag.

That the women and men who founded Rhode Island were religious and Christian is not in dispute. That they named the city they founded “Providence” and adopted mottoes such as “Hope” and symbols such as anchors that can be found in the Bible should not be surprising. (Besides Providence, other place names in Rhode Island derived from the Bible are the islands, such as Prudence, Patience, Hope and Despair.) What is surprising is that these same very religious and committed people were uninterested in forcing others to believe as they did. They were uninterested in forcing violent or oppressive confrontations with those who did not believe as they did, or in establishing a law that respected their views more than others.

Instead, these very pious Christians established a government that separated church and state. Then they chose an anchor for a symbol, not a cross. They chose a motto, “Hope” that anyone, religious or not, could find meaning in. They did not choose the word “Jesus” or “God” or “Prayer.” They chose the word Hope, perhaps because that is how they lived. They hoped that their little experiment in tolerance and acceptance would work, and three hundred and fifty years later, it seems that their hope was realized.

Some people, however, would see the hopes for our state dashed. They would erect actual prayer banners in our public schools, with an eye towards indoctrination of the impious and special treatment for those with the proper beliefs. Even today, some people, like the historian laureate, write lines that seek to divide along religious lines rather than to unite.

In language only slightly elevated from a schoolyard taunt, Conley writes, “I should hope that this revelation (another biblical word) will not incite secularists, humanists, atheists and the irreligious to petition the General Assembly to devise a new and neutered state emblem.”

Of course, to incite is exactly what Conley wants. Conley adventures through history like Nicholas Cage in National Treasure, ferreting out the secrets that our state’s founders embedded as secret codes to modern day Catholics assuring them that despite our pretensions to separation of church and state, in truth, some are more equal than others.

Of course, these fantasies are all beside the point. Our state flag was formally adopted in 1897, not 1663 as Conley implies. The word “Hope” and the anchor symbol were on the Rhode Island state seal and incorporated into the flag over two centuries later. As Howard M. Chapin wrote in “Illustrations of the Seals, Arms and Flags of Rhode Island,” the motto, “Hope” is “likely” inspired by the verse in Hebrews, but there is no definitive evidence to that effect. (Personally I believe it was inspired by the verse, but I would never state it as definitively as Conley does, and he’s the professional historian, not me.)

The only thing Conley’s incomplete and self-serving flag day piece will incite in “secularists, humanists, atheists and the irreligious” is despair: Despair in Rhode Island ever finding a historian laureate more interested in history than his own laurels.

Catholic parishes punish two state legislators


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

TobinBishopThomasTwo Rhode Island Catholic legislators told Mike Stanton, reporting for the Boston Globe, that they were asked to step down from positions in their churches because they supported same sex marriage.

Stanton, a former Providence Journal investigative reporter reports that House Majority Leader Nick Mattiello and Senator William Conley were both punished in their parishes for their legislative positions on marriage equality.

Representative Nicholas Mattiello of Cranston, the Democratic House majority leader, says that he was asked to take a break from serving as a lector at his church after changing his position and publicly supporting same-sex marriage.

“I do think it’s time to concentrate on what unifies and brings us together, what makes us merciful rather than judgmental,” Mattiello said. “The pope’s views are more appropriate than what I’ve been hearing for years.”

State Senator William J. Conley Jr. of East Providence, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved the marriage bill, says a diocesan official asked him to resign as a trustee of La Salle Academy in Providence. The pastor of the East Providence parish where he was baptized, Conley says, denounced him from the pulpit as a “Judas.”

Stanton’s blockbuster report on Tobin also has gems like this:

Meghan Smith of Catholics for Choice, calls Tobin “one of the more rightwing bishops” in the United States. His style is at odds with the new pope, she says, as well as his flock in the one of most Catholic states.

Earlier this year, RI Future reported that a Catholic church in Woonsocket had asked gay married people not to receive communion.

Big vote for marriage equality is today


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Ray Sullivan, of Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, in East Providence last night.
Ray Sullivan, of Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, in East Providence last night.

For Rhode Island progressives, it’s the most widely-anticipated day of the 2013 legislative session. For anyone who values equal treatment under the law, it’s even bigger than that. Today is the day the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on marriage equality.

The House already passed it overwhelmingly, the governor is a big supporter too and the Senate is highly unlikely to reject it if and when it ever reaches the full chamber. On Smith Hill, issues are won or lost behind closed doors, and those outcomes become evident at the committee level. So today the Ocean State learns if, collectively, we are ready to recognize same sex marriage.

From a practical matter, there are three people who control its fate, and two whom will be casting votes today. Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed is famously opposed to marriage equality, but said she won’t weigh in.

Rookie committee members Lou Raptakis, of Coventry, and Bill Conley, of East Providence, have held their cards close and Rhode Islanders United for Marriage have zeroed in on both of them in this home stretch.

That there are two bills up for a vote today – one backed only by the most socially conservative state legislators, out-of-town hate groups and Catholic priests and another that pretty much everyone else likes – gives them some political cover: vote for them both and let the full Senate flush it out.