Panhandling and human dignity


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
Alexii
Saint Alexius

Who among us has never asked for help? Who among us is so self-sufficient that they have never relied on the kindness of strangers? And when we ask for help, or lean on our friends, family or even strangers for support, have we given up our dignity, or are we simply demonstrating our humanity? What, after all, is more human than relying on our greatest strength, each other?

“There is nothing dignified about standing on street corners, or venturing into the middle of the street, dressed in dirty, shabby clothes, in all sorts of weather, with a crude cardboard sign, begging passersby for help,” wrote Bishop Thomas Tobin in a letter to the Providence Journal last week, but he was wrong. Dignity, the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect, is, by Catholic principle, “inherent and inviolable.” Human dignity has been called the “cornerstone of all Catholic social teaching.”

Humanists affirm the dignity of every human being. A cornerstone Humanist document is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 1 states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” No distinction is made in the declaration based on class or property.

I’ll avoid the sexist term “brotherhood” (the Declaration was written in 1948 after all) and call it our “spirit of kinship.” This idea, that we are one large human family, reminds us to rely on each other when things go wrong in our lives. Our kinship is a fundamental part of what makes us human, and without it, our society and our lives fracture.

Through this fracturing, people end up on the street, homeless, hungry and alone with their demons. The truth of human dignity means that it should not be the responsibility of the downtrodden to ask for our help. Our own human dignity requires us to offer it.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also affirms the human right to expression, the human right to freely move within our cities and as a consequence, affirms our right to ask for assistance.

“The problems [associated with panhandling] have spread since Mayor Jorge Elorza, responding to the threat of action from the American Civil Liberties Union and others, directed that the police should no longer enforce ordinances dealing with panhandling and loitering,” said Tobin in his letter. “The ACLU, while presumably well-intentioned, has done no one a favor.”

In defending the human and constitutional rights of panhandlers, the ACLU respected human dignity in a way Bishop Tobin seems unprepared to do. The “favor” the ACLU did was to remind us that rather than sweeping people in need out of sight, it is far better to provide the things they need to live their lives comfortably.

Some religious leaders understand this, but many others don’t get it, even as they wonder why their moral authority is crumbling.

The war on secularism


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

10367791_10152501605498364_3825072922283601389_nFor his last Christmas in office before handing the reigns of government over to Gina Raimondo, Governor Lincoln Chafee mostly avoided the idiotic lambasting he has received in previous years over his decision to refer to the large decorated evergreen placed in the State House rotunda as a “Holiday Tree” rather than a “Christmas Tree.” Locally speaking, the annual “War on Christmas” was relatively quiet this year, mostly, I believe, because of the election and because of the attention being given to the #BlackLivesMatter protests.

As president of the Humanists of Rhode Island, I waited until the day after the election to formally request a spot in the State House for our Roger Williams banner. This banner, placed for the first time in the State House last year, has been relegated to a spot on the second floor of the State House, in an area designated for displays by local ethnic and civic groups.

williams banner small
The idea of such an area is to allow a “free speech zone,” a place for symbols and ideas of a religious nature to be displayed on public property. In this way has the law evolved so that the separation of church and state may be violated. Here you will find all sorts of statements and displays about religion. There are mangers and baby Jesuses Jesii?, Christmas trees and icons of saints. In fact, far from being a public space free of religious endorsements, the State House has become a public space chock full of religious endorsements: Christian, Jewish, atheist and other.

This is why I don’t call the battles over such displays a “War on Christmas.” These battles should more properly be called a “War on Secularism,” and we are all losing. None of these displays belong in a public building, with the possible exception of the Humanists of Rhode Island’s exceptionally designed banner which celebrates the birth of Roger Williams and the separation of church and state, which has secular, historical and seasonal value, but no religion.

But the law is the law, and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon, so those with a secular and non-believing outlook will be compelled to at least balance the religious views on displays with their own for the foreseeable future.

There is one big problem though. Humanists, atheists and all non-Christians and non-Jews are victims of viewpoint discrimination, an illegal process where the opinions and ideas of certain religious groups are prioritized over others. Certain groups are routinely being given better placement in the State House, garnering their displays greater visibility than others, which gives these groups the appearance of favoritism.

SaintWhat I’m talking about is the placement of the Christmas Tree in the main rotunda. Governor Chafee was onto something when he called it a “Holiday Tree.” As a holiday tree, devoid of religious meaning, the tree could stand every year in the best, most visible location in the State House, and no one could make a case that their religion or non-religion was being discriminated against. But calling it a Christmas Tree means that Christian views are being prioritized by being given the favored spot, year after year.

The addition of a Hanukkah menorah, also always located in a favored spot just off the main rotunda, does little to make the situation better. Note that the menorah is never given the center spot, but is always off to the side. Note that the Christmas Tree is never moved to the side so that any other viewpoint might be displayed in its dominating place of honor.

The message the State of Rhode Island is sending is clear: Christians are #1, Jews are #2 (perhaps by virtue of the history, monotheism and holy texts they share with Christians) and all other view points are relegated to the second floor, where visitors must search them out.

This year I repeatedly asked that our banner be allowed to occupy some space on the main rotunda, either hung near the tree or displayed on a structure we would provide. My requests were ignored. When I said that I wanted a place on the main rotunda, I was told that I could have the space on the second floor or nothing.

This is wrong. The second floor is for second class citizens. First class citizens are given the main rotunda, given a state sanctioned lighting ceremony, and given the endorsement of our state government. This is a clear violation of the first amendment, and a clear message to non-Christians that this is a Christian state, run by and for Christians alone. The rest of us are simply tolerated.

Next year the Humanists of Rhode Island will once again demand placement on the main rotunda. We hope that Gina Raimondo does the right thing and allows our banner to be placed with the Christmas Tree.



Support Steve Ahlquist!




What it means to be progressive?


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
Child_laborer
The reason to be a progressive…

A while back, Mark Gray and Bob Plain were discussing the word “progressive (while discussing Sam Howard’s piece here) and neither seemed sure of how to define the term. (Since then, Andrew Tillett-Saks took a stab at defining the term here.) Bob suggested the term had something to do with supporting “bottom up” Keynesian economics and later suggested that progressives should seek to the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Mark seemed to indicate that the term was essentially meaningless and suggested the word “liberal” be reclaimed. As a Humanist, I found this exchange interesting, because at its core, Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life based in reason, compassion, optimism, courage and action, so the term “progressive” is at the core of my beliefs in a very basic way.

Simply put, progressives advocate for social reform. Working from the core value of compassion, progressives see the expansion of human and civil rights as important goals and work to advance the well being of all humans. Built into progressive ideals is an optimism about the necessity of human beings coming together to solve the larger issues confronting our world. When done correctly, progressivism is not Utopian fantasy, because progressives should be pragmatists, grounded in the real world.

Mark and Bob indicated in their podcast that being a pragmatic progressive is akin to being a compassionate conservative. They were riffing off statements made by House Speaker Gordon Fox and State Treasurer Gina Raimondo, who both referred to themselves as pragmatists. However, Raimondo and Fox were not talking about pragmatism as an approach to values decisions but as an approach to political realities, akin to Kissinger’s realpolitik. The statements by Fox and Raimondo indicated a willingness to abandon progressive values when politically expedient, rather than adopting a pragmatic approach towards executing progressive values.

Pragmatically executing progressive values requires science and reason, rather than cultural prejudices and tradition, as the best tools with which to better society. Science and reason are not in and of themselves the goal of progressives, they are the tools progressives use to create a better, more just and more compassionate society. Progressives are led by their compassion to enable the best possible social reform by using the best possible tools.

So what does this all mean in real world terms? Going back to Bob Plain’s idea that progressives advance the ideas of Keynesian economics, for instance, we can see that it’s not a belief in Keynesian economics that makes one a progressive, it’s a belief in compassion,  reason and science that brings one to view that Keynesian economics is currently the best contender as an economic theory around which to organize a capitalist economic system. As to whether capitalism is the best way to organize our economy, that’s a discussion for another time, but here I will note that if capitalism cannot be properly tamed by Keynesian proscriptions, it is not worth the misery it causes and should be abandoned.

Progressives value democracy. Recognizing that all human beings have inherent worth and dignity means that all human beings should have some say in how our society should be arranged. Progressives believe that democracy and universal enfranchisement, limited by a commitment to the widest possible understanding of human rights, is our best method of ensuring our fidelity to the goal of protecting and enhancing human wellbeing.

Bob and Mark felt that support of organized labor was a sticking point for some progressives. Just as all progressives should be in favor of democracy, so should all progressives be in favor of unions. Unions are simply groups of people advocating for the best deal possible in their workplace under a capitalist economic system. Unions at their best are democratically run, and work to better the well being of workers/people. The right of people to peaceably assemble and collectively bargain is as absolute and essential as any right there is.

Progressives and others would be right to take issue with the way some unions behave in the real world, just as they are right to take issue with the way some democracies behave in the real world. One can stand up for democracy and be opposed to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo or support unions without supporting corruption. However, progressives should not be opposed to unions on philosophical grounds. If you accept that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you have to accept the right of people to unionize. If you deny that people have the right to collectively bargain, then you should hang up your “progressive” hat for good, because you are denying basic human rights, democracy and the advancement of human well being in favor of monied interests, plutocracy and economic ideology.

Education is another issue that bedevils progressives. Right now there is a concerted effort to wrest public education from government control (and in our democracy that means wresting it from the control of the citizens) and putting it under the auspices of private industry or religious institutions. Both of these options should be anathema to progressives. If there is truly something deeply wrong with the public education system in the United States (and that seems unclear to me, though I am by no means an expert in this area) then it falls to the public to correct that issue.

Turning over control of our schools to private, for-profit industry, in the hopes that business models will be more effective at finding educational solutions, treats our children as commodities, which is the very opposite of treating our children as worthy human beings. Furthermore, the idea that businesses, operating under the grinding Darwinism of the free market, will do a better job educating our children flies in the face of what business is truly about.  Businesses are not about delivering better products, businesses are about maximizing profits. Look at the world around us. Most cars are not high performance Teslas, and most cellphones are not state of the art iPhones. Education by free market will produce some exceptionally high quality educations but will mostly churn out sub-par, assembly line, cookie cutter educations designed to meet minimum standards. Again, this treats our youth as commodities.

Vouchers, which would give parents money allotments that would allow them to send their children to private and parochial schools, are also contrary to progressive values. The money handed out would be siphoned away from already underfunded and struggling public school systems and channeled to educational environments that may well stand in direct opposition to the values of democracy, human rights and human wellbeing. Private educational institutions are under no obligation to teach students in accordance with the values of a free and open society.

Some private schools may deny the fundamental principles of reason and science by rejecting evolutionary science education, and others may reject universal human rights by denying the existence of women’s and LGBTQ rights. More extreme schools of thought cannot be excluded from public funding through vouchers. Private schools could just as easily deny the roundness of the earth or the humanity of non-whites.

Progressives believe that our society should be under no obligation to fund, in any way whatsoever, ideas that fly in the face of compassion, reason and human rights. Though we recognize that in a pluralistic society such ideas do exist, and understand that some parents and guardians will make the decision to pull their children from public schools in order to send their children to a private institution or home school, our commitment should be to making our public schools the best they can be, using the best ideas and most recent scientific studies to ground our work in reality, not helping to fund those that would tear down our society based on religious or ideological beliefs.

The root of the word “progressive” is “progress.” Progressives need to look beyond current issues and current events and keep one eye on the future. Progressives should imagine the kind of world this could be, and work to get there. Being a progressive in the 1930s did not necessarily include being passionate about LGBTQ rights. But by the 1980s that’s exactly what it meant. Today’s seemingly minor issue could become the great civil rights battle of fifty years from now. There should be no shame in advocating today what will only seem like common sense in the future. Nor should there be shame in giving due consideration to ideas that are outside our experience or seem somewhat wacky. Many things we take for granted today would seem unbelievable to people who existed a century or even fifty years ago. If progressives remember to use compassion, tempered by reason, optimism and the council of others, we will not go too far astray.

One final note on what it means to be a progressive, particularly in Rhode Island, as regards religious and other concerns of conscience. Democracy and a concern for the value of all human beings necessitates a secular, non-religious government. This is as essential to being a progressive as anything else I’ve mentioned. Our private beliefs can be as varied and imaginative as we desire, but the space in which we must all interact, that is, the government and its institutions, needs to be free of religion and dogma, so that all people feel free to express themselves fully. Public, government sponsored religion and prayers, even if deemed ceremonial and traditional, fly in the face of inclusion. The prayer that opens a legislative session or the Christmas Tree displayed in the State House privileges and legitimizes one set of beliefs over another. In this light justice and equality seem a revokable gift of the ruling class, rather than basic and guaranteed human rights.

Being a progressive is deeply meaningful, and progressives should know that they are following a proud tradition of advancing human rights, human well being, and institutional fairness. Progressives have a history of making the world a better place, and I am proud to work in that tradition.

Atheists convene in Boston this Labor Day weekend


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

AAA ConventionPeople might be surprised to learn that just as there are many different ways to believe in all the different religions and gods currently in vogue, there are also many different ways to not believe. There are atheists, new atheists, confrontationists, accomodationists, Humanists, secular humanists, religious humanists, Ethical Culturalists, freethinkers, Brights, naturalists, strong and weak agnostics and many, many more. Every major religion can count among its devotees those who doubt or plainly disbelieve the teachings of their church, synagog or mosque. One poll suggests that 15% of Catholics don’t believe in God, but most of them don’t identify as atheists, they call themselves Catholics.

There are many different organizations that seek to cater to the concerns of nonbelievers, just as there are many different organizations (we call them churches or religions) that cater to believers. Those looking for simple answers and easy labels will be frustrated.

This weekend in Boston one such group, the Atheist Alliance of America (AAA), will be holding their annual convention just outside Boston at the Westin Waltham Boston Hotel. First formed in 1991 as the Atheist alliance, the group quickly expanded, becoming the Atheist Alliance International (AAI). In 2010 and 2011 the AAA and the AAI became two separate organizations. The AAI is positioning itself as a group to deal with international concerns while the AAA focuses its efforts here in the United States.

The convention in Waltham/Boston starts Friday night and continues throughout the labor day weekend. Sunday night’s speaker will be “renowned scientist, esteemed researcher and noted author” Dr. Steven Pinker of Harvard University. Another notable guest will be Rebecca Vitsmun, who, when in the aftermath of a tornado that wrecked her home was asked by Wolf Blitzer live on CNN if she thanked the Lord for her survival said, “I’m actually an atheist.”

Other guest include Rebecca Hale, president of the American Humanist Association, Maryam Namazie, and Iranian born atheist and feminist, Paula S Apsell, executive producer of NOVA for PBS, and many more guests local, national and international. A full list of speakers is available on the conventions website.

I’ll be attending the convention and will be recording and writing about the various speakers and programs thanks to AAA President Chuck VonDerAhe. It promises to be an interesting weekend.

Rhode Island, Humanism and the Death Penalty

Recently, Humanist and philosopher John Shook said it very simply, and I have to agree with him: Humanism cannot support the death penalty. His full article is linked and I would suggest that everybody with an interest in justice read it, but one part bears repeating here: Humanism stands for valuing the lives of all, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and governments that defend all of their people. These grounds alone are sufficient for abolishing the death penalty.

As a member of Humanists of Rhode Island, I am proud to live in a state that saw this simple truth over a century and a half ago, when, in 1852, Rhode Island became the second state (after Michigan) to abolish the death penalty. Though proponents, to our shame, re-established the death penalty in 1872 and later in 1973, in 1984 the death penalty was once more off the books. Since then proponents have made several attempts to reintroduce this penalty, but so far to no effect. The Rhode Island Secretary of State has a great little article on the history of the death penalty in Rhode Island. Rhode Island took such a forward looking because of a tragic mistake. The state executed John Gordon, an innocent man. Though there is no way to undo such a wrong, on June 6, 2011, Governor Lincoln Chafee signed a pardon that officially admitted that Rhode Island had not given John Gordon a fair trial, and probably executed an innocent man. Upon signing the pardon, Chafee said:

John Gordon was put to death after a highly questionable judicial process and based on no concrete evidence. There is no question he was not given a fair trial. Today we are trying to right that injustice. John Gordon’s wrongful execution was a major factor in Rhode Island’s abolition of and longstanding opposition to the death penalty. Today, as we pardon John Gordon, we also recognize and uphold that commitment.

In addition to Rhode Island’s proud tradition of religious and philosophical tolerance, which guarantees a persons right to freedom of and from religion, there is another Humanist current we can take justifiable pride in: Our commitment to the value of human rights. Be proud of this tradition and feel free boldly proclaim your opposition to the death penalty as both a Humanist espousing reason and compassion, and as a Rhode Islander, valuing a tradition steeped in human rights and fairness.