GOP’s Luis Vargas: Just wrong on history, church and state


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

Luis A. Vargas, the new Director of Strategic Initiatives for the RI GOP has been tasked with “spearheading” the new initiative, “‘Oportunidad para Todos,’ aimed at reaching out to Rhode Island’s Hispanic population.”

It is difficult for the GOP to make significant inroads with the Hispanic population, as the conservative, anti-immigration policies mostly favored by that party tend to alienate potential voters. So what can a young, conservative pre-law Roger Williams University student highlight about the Republican Party that might appeal to Hispanic voters?

Religion, of course.

This seems like a good bet, because the GOP has benefited in the past from the crass exploitation of religious values, courting voters on divisive social issues such as reproductive and LGBTQ rights even as they ignore the deeper issues of economic and political injustice. Part of this strategy has always involved denying certain historical truths about United States history, one of the biggest being:

This was in response to the Humanists of Rhode Island’s announcement of the Day of Reason. Think about this for a moment. This guy wants to be a lawyer, but he does not understand one of the essential building blocks upon which our country was founded. As legal scholar Garret Epps wrote in the Atlantic:

The words “separation of church and state” are not in the text; the idea of separation is. Article VI provides that all state and federal officials “shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be  required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United  States.” The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause… provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”–meaning that not only no church but no “religion” could be made the official faith of the United States. Finally the Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. (These prohibitions were extended to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment, whose framers in 1866 wanted to make sure that the states maintained free, democratic systems instead of the old antebellum slave oligarchies that spawned the Civil War.)

More insultingly, Vargas goes to a University that is named for the man who first coined the phrase! More from Epps:

In 1644, the American theologian Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist congregation in the British New World, coined the phrase to signify the protection that the church needed in order to prevent misuse and corruption by political leaders: “The church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the church of the Christians under the New Testament in the antitype were both separate from the world; and when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness.”

As to Vargas’s second contention, that “our government isn’t secular,” that’s equally ridiculous. If our nation isn’t secular, then it must be religious. If it is religious, then what religion is it? No fair saying “Christian” because Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a label for a set containing many different beliefs all of which are considered to be inspired by Jesus. This set includes Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Congregationalists and many more, perhaps too numerous to count.

The reason all these contesting Christianities can get along (and get along with members of other religions and yes, get along with those of us who have no religion) is that we live in a country that grants no favor to one form of religion at the expense of another. All these different forms of belief and non-belief exist within a secular framework, our government.

If, as Vargas maintains, our government is not truly secular, then it is malfunctioning. That’s where groups like the Humanists of Rhode Island and the ACLU come in. We fight for freedom of conscience, religious liberty, and a secular world in which all are free to believe as their conscience dictates.

This is not the end of Vargas’s foolish pronouncements. He also denies that our country is a democracy, preferring to call it a Constitutional Republic instead. Of course, the word democracy is not in conflict with the ideas of a Constitution or a Republic, but Vargas doesn’t care about things like facts. When pressed, Vargas presents a strict definition of democracy as “one person one vote” and makes up a brand new term to describe our government. We are not a democracy, we are “an accommodating republic.”

Got it. If you can’t win on the merits try to blind ’em with bullshit.

It’s often said that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Hopefully, as Vargas continues his education, he’ll gather more facts and revise his opinions.

One final point:

Pandering to religion isn’t the sure bet it once was. A new Pew Poll reveals that 18% of Hispanics are religiously unaffiliated. The Catholic Church is hemorrhaging Hispanic numbers at a rate that suggests that in the very near future most Hispanics will not be Catholic, even if most Catholics are Hispanic. In light of such polls the GOP might think about crafting policies that benefit potential voters rather than pander to their religious biases, but I wouldn’t count on that happening. It’s much easier to hire someone like Luis Vargas, who wears his religious bigotry on his sleeve as he tweets out such beauties as:

Vargas is obviously a great, forward thinking addition to the RI GOP team.

ACLU sues Smithfield for unconstitutional ban on anonymous political speech


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

philo-publiusThe ACLU of Rhode Island today filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the Smithfield Police Department from continuing to enforce an overly broad state law that makes it a crime to circulate anonymous political literature, including unsigned newspaper editorials. The statute, which carries a potential one-year prison sentence, unconstitutionally bars the distribution of any anonymous political literature that relates to ballot questions or that criticizes a political candidate’s “personal character or political action.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled an almost identical Ohio statute unconstitutional and called anonymous pamphleteering “an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent” designed to “protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” That 1995 ruling cited a long history of anonymous political literature in this country, including the Federalist Papers.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the Rhode Island law has never been formally repealed, and last year the Smithfield Police Department arrested a political consultant for purportedly violating it. The Attorney General’s office later dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court case. In January, the ACLU wrote town officials to seek assurances that Smithfield police would no longer enforce the statute. The ACLU received no response; instead, news stories quoted town officials as calling the ACLU request “absolute nonsense” and stating that they intended to continue initiating criminal complaints under the statute.

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Mark W. Freel, argues that statements like those, “despite clear rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and despite positions taken by the State and the Attorney General in other cases, evidence[] a complete disregard for the rights of individuals … who wish to exercise their constitutionally protected right to engage in anonymous pamphleteering and electioneering on matters of public concern.” The suit, which does not challenge other more narrowly tailored disclosure requirements contained in campaign finance laws, seeks a court order declaring the statute unconstitutional, an injunction against any further enforcement of it by the town, and an award of attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff in the suit, Smithfield resident John Blakeslee, has disseminated written political materials over the years that could be deemed to violate the statute’s requirements. He said today: “Sometimes those expressing a minority opinion don’t feel safe giving their name and address, and voicing an unpopular point of view requires anonymity. As a gay rights activist, I participated in many activities in the 80’s and 90’s where identifying myself wasn’t an option; there was a real threat of violence and discrimination from police, employers, neighbors and others. A major reason for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, including anonymous speech, is to give a voice to the oppressed. Nobody should have to worry about going to prison for exercising that right.”

ACLU attorney Freel added: “There is a long-standing tradition in this country’s legal and political history in favor of the right to comment anonymously on elections and candidates.  The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly recognized that right, and has held that it is firmly embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The Town of Smithfield needs to recognize and respect that right, and any Rhode Island statute that is inconsistent with it should be struck down as unconstitutional.”

ACLU of RI executive Steven Brown noted: “Laws like this can have a chilling effect on free speech, and the town’s unwillingness to acknowledge this is deeply troubling. If Smithfield police want to enforce the law, they should start with the highest law of the land – the Constitution.”

Although anonymous literature that criticizes candidates for public office is a criminal offense under the statute, literature that supports or praises a candidate is not. The lawsuit argues that the statute “is not narrowly tailored to achieve whatever constitutionally legitimate interests the state may have.”

Amend RI Constitution: Corporations aren’t people


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

OP mtaIn 2012, the General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution calling on leaders in  Washington to reverse the effects of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision, which enshrined corporations as people and their spending of money in elections as protected free speech. Rhode Island is one of twelve states to take such action alongside at least another dozen who are contemplating similar non-binding legislative action. Meanwhile, hundreds of municipalities around the country have passed resolutions likewise calling for the reversal of Citizens United, including Providence and other RI municipalities. Rhode Island also enjoys leadership on this important issue at the federal level from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has spearheaded the initiative to amend the U.S. Constitution. We should be proud of the leadership that has been shown by our political leaders on this issue.

However if you’re like me, you don’t want to hold your breath waiting for things to happen in Washington, D.C. That’s why I got together with some friends and started a Rhode Island affiliate of the Move To Amend coalition. That’s also why we drafted legislation that would allow Rhode Island to be the first state to amend its constitution to abolish corporate personhood. If passed, the bill would put the question on next year’s ballot for the voters to decide. We can be proud that we are the first state in the nation to be considering this move.

The good news is that we have started a petition to support amending the RI Constitution, and in the less than three days it has been up, it already has more than 300 signatures. You can sign it here: http://movetoamend.nationbuilder.com/amend_ri

The less good but still exciting news is that the bill is being heard this Thursday, May 9th in the House Judiciary committee, so there is only a short time to get people on this petition and to the Statehouse for the hearing. I’d be grateful if you can share the petition through social media and email with all your friends. Please also consider coming to the hearing. I’ve made a Facebook event page that allows you to RSVP and spread the word to your friends.

This hearing on Thursday and the subsequent fate of this legislation could prove to be historic steps in the fight to reclaim our democracy from the grip of corporate power. If the bill passes and Rhode Islanders determine that a corporation is not a person as polling suggests they would, there are a lot of potential outcomes and all good for the broader goal of amending the U.S. Constitution.