Separation of Church and State

October 22, 2014

Can atheists be trusted in public office?

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

“I should emphasize that being an atheist would neither recommend nor disqualify [Jorge Elorza] from being Mayor of Providence,” said Bishop Thomas Tobin in a surprising, recent Facebook post, but before celebrating Tobin’s tolerance and openness, we should read on, “But I wonder if an atheist mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of believers (of all faiths) and to encourage and support the many contributions the faith community makes in our city and state.”

Thus, Tobin slyly implies that atheists are intolerant.

Put aside, for a moment, the idea that atheists may be more or less intolerant than a conservative, Republican, Catholic Bishop and ponder a moment what Tobin’s words would sound like if he were talking about group of people other than atheists.

“But I wonder if a Jewish mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of Christians (of all denominations) and to encourage and support the many contributions the Christian community makes in our city and state.”

“But I wonder if an Asian mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of citizens (of all races) and to encourage and support the many contributions non-Asian communities make in our city and state.”

“But I wonder if a woman mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of men and to encourage and support the many contributions men make in our city and state.”

“But I wonder if a Catholic mayor would be in a position to respect the sincere convictions of Protestants and to encourage and support the many contributions Protestants make in our city and state.”

A candidate’s religious convictions (or lack thereof) are not relevant to their fitness for office, unless those beliefs run contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution reads, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, 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.”

If your religious beliefs run counter to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and you attempt to act on those beliefs in your official capacity as an elected official or judge, then you are unfit for office. Unless one has good reason to suspect that a candidate will not uphold the Constitution, questioning their fitness for office on the basis of religious belief or unbelief is bigotry, pure and simple.

September 16, 2014September 17, 2014

Cianci’s robocall peddles falsehoods and prejudice

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

How does a person who has twice embarrassed the great city of Providence by losing their job as mayor due to felony convictions convince people to give them a third chance to screw over the city? First, such a person must hold such a low opinion of the voting public that they seriously think of themselves as a viable candidate. Second, the candidate must then do everything they can to paint their opponent as something worse than someone who has twice been caught violating the public’s trust.

Vincent Cianci has attempted to solve this unique problem by branding his opponent, Jorge Elorza, as an atheist eager to impose his disbelief in God on unsuspecting children in our public schools. In a robocall delivered to those Providence area homes that still have landlines, listeners were given the following false choice:

Buddy Cianci believes that there needs to be a separation of church and state and teaching about God’s existence, or non-existence, has no place in our public schools. Who do you agree with? Press “1” if you agree with Cianci that teaching about God’s existence or non-existence, does not belong in schools. Press “2” if you agree with Jorge Elorza that it would be acceptable to teach in schools that there is no God.

Cianci’s robocall is referencing a paper from 2010 in which Elorza speculates on the limits of secularity in public schools. In this paper, Elorza is careful to outline three different ways in which to understand God, theist, deist and memist. At the end of his paper Elorza concludes that schools could theoretically teach that the theist God does not exist, but that the deist and memist Gods would be constitutionally protected. Says Elorza,

Deism allows for individuals to search for answers to the transcendental and ultimate questions of life. And memism allows for people to live according to any particular moral code and to worship God as they see fit. The core features that give religion its special significance in people’s lives remain entirely intact.

Elorza’s paper was a philosophical and legalistic think piece, not a policy paper for the advancement of atheist ideals. Nowhere in this paper does Elorza seek to oppose the protections of the First Amendment or violate the tenet of separation of church and state. Cianci’s robocall is a crass attempt to divide people on religious grounds, playing on our prejudices and fears.

On this site, I speculated, in response to Elorza’s paper, that Elorza might be an atheist, and I chided the candidate for unfairly characterizing his paper as a defense against “angry atheists” during a debate with Michael Solomon on Channel 12. Elorza may or not be an atheist. Cianci may or may not be a Catholic. In truth, the religious beliefs of the candidates do not matter. What matters is character, and an assessment of the previous actions of the candidates as pertains to how they may perform in the future.

By this measure, Cianci is the clear loser. Twice convicted of serious crimes performed while in office, Cianci has twice demonstrated his inability to lead this city. His candidacy for a third go at the job is an insult to the voters of Providence, and his robocall demonstrates the depths of his dishonesty.

Jorge Elorza is the clear choice for mayor of Providence.

April 27, 2012April 27, 2012

Who’s the Knucklehead in Woonsocket Cross Flap?

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

While reasonable people can disagree about whether a religious symbol belongs on a war memorial on public property, most would agree that politicians should not call their constituents knuckleheads. Woonsocket Mayor Leo Fontaine seems to be the outlier here though.

Earlier this week he levied that insult at Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group from Wisconsin, that is challenging the city’s war memorial at the fire house because it features a Christian cross. Yesterday, when I asked him about it, he extended the smack down to the Woonsocket resident who brought the issue to their attention.

“I said that they were so…” Fontaine said, not quite finishing the sentence, when I asked him if he thought residents who agree that the cross violates the separation of church and state clause of the Constitution are also knuckleheads. “For them to go forward surreptitiously to try to file a complaint over a monument that has been there for over 90 years yeah my belief is that there is a better avenue to try to resolve their differences.”

On the other hand, Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of Freedom From Religion, seems to think it’s somewhat knuckle-headed for a mayor to not see merit in her complaint.

“It’s like saying the Founding Fathers are knuckleheads because they created a secular government,” she told The Associated Press.

Not surprisingly, Fontaine doesn’t see it this way. “There is core foundation that this country was founded on our judeo-christian values.”

He’s wrong actually. While our founding fathers may have held judeo-christian values, those are not the values they based our democracy on. In fact, in their infinite wisdom, they made certain to keep their private beliefs separate and distinct from the kind of government they created. To confuse the two is, well, knuckle-headed.

January 13, 2012January 13, 2012

Girl at the Center of the Cranston “Prayer Banner” Case targeted by Cyber-Bullies

Upfront let me say that I am proud to be an uncle to the amazing Jessica Ahlquist, the student who two days ago won her case against the City of Cranston over an unconstitutional “prayer banner” on display at her school. It was not only a victory for Jessica, but a victory for everyone in this country who values the Constitution, freedom of conscience, and our secular society. Founder Roger Williams based the government of Rhode Island on these principles, establishing the first secular government in history and the freest land in the world at the time.

From time to time, of course, we need reminding of our history and of the importance of our Constitutional rights, and Jessica did so with a grace and poise not often found in people well older than her.

That’s why it’s so difficult to talk about the threats and cyber-bullying that she has been exposed to since the verdict came down. One website provided a long list of screenshots of these, and they are truly deplorable.

“shes not human shes garbage”

“I think everyone should just fight this girl”

“I’ll drop anchor on her face”

“Let’s all jump that girl who did the banner”

“When I take over the world I’m going to do a holacaust to all the atheists”

“i cant wait to hear about you getting curb stomped”

“everyone is going to beat you up prob”

“what a little bitch lol I wanna snuff her”

This from people defending a Christian Prayer on the wall of a public school. A prayer that says, in part:

“Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win,”

That’s irony.

To the credit of the Cranston School Committee, when I contacted them with my concerns, they were quick to assure me that the Cranston Police have been investigating these threats since last night, and that they are taking this issue very seriously.

Cranston School Committee Chairperson Andrea Iannazzi admits being troubled by what she has seen but “will not break confidentiality by discussing students behavior or discipline…” Which is fine, because most of this bullying behavior and threats come from minors, and as long as appropriate action is taking place, all should be well. Also responding were Steve Bloom, Frank Lombardi, and committee member McFarland. Cranston Superintendent of Schools Nero is aware of the situation, as is Assistant Superintendent Judy Lundsten.

As a parent, an uncle, and a citizen of Rhode Island, I am glad that the situation is being addressed in a forthright and professional manner. Title 16-21, concerning the Health and Safety of Students, defines bullying as “the use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof directed at a student that… places the student in reasonable fear of harm to himself/herself…” or “creates an intimidating, threatening, hostile, or abusive educational environment for the student…”

As an atheist Jessica is part of a minority that is currently under attack at her school. If she were black, Jewish or gay there would be a huge outcry against her being treated in this manner. Given that our society is, at its best, concerned with the health and safety of all our children, I am pleased by the prompt action Cranston city officials seem to be taking.

Update 2:00 PM:

The Providence Journal has picked up the story from Rhode Island’s Future here.

January 7, 2012January 19, 2012

Have You Seen the New Freedom From Religion Foundation Billboard?

The Madison, WI-based Freedom From Religion Foundation has put up a 14 by 48 foot billboard on Interstate 295 at Route 2 in Warwick. This is the first billboard by the organization in Rhode Island, but the 695th in 61 cities since 2007.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, Foundation co-president, said it’s fitting that the campaign has expanded to Rhode Island, which was founded by Roger Williams, a strong advocate of keeping religion out of government and vice versa.

“Although Williams was a religious man, he believed deeply that civil and sectarian authorities should not intrude on each other, for the good of both,” Gaylor said.

She noted Williams’ famous statement that “forced worship stinks in the nostrils of God.”

The billboard’s message is abundantly clear, based on a form of governance that seems to be continually distorted. The Founding Fathers may have been Deists, and most of them held some sort of belief in a god, in whatever way that was personally defined. Anything more than that, and in particular anything related to the national government’s support of a specific religion, was out of the question. The Founding Fathers were fearful of unrestrained government power, and particularly a government that would impose religion on its people.

Many clear examples exist that support this, including our very own Roger Williams, founder of the Providence Plantations colony in 1636, who was a “.” This was all due to him needing to flee Massachusetts by challenging the political and religious establishments, claiming government had no role in religion and that the Massachusetts Colony was not even legitimate since the land was stolen from Native Americans.

The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams in 1797 reads:

…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…

In Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802), he wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. “

Another stellar example was James Madison’s response to Jasper Adams’ pamphlet (a graduate of Brown University), The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States, in which he wrote:

In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts.

In most of the Govt of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt.

To put this in perspective, we just have to look at the conspicuous moralism that often accompanies religious-based “discussions” in Rhode Island, such as those about a tree in the State House Rotunda, being pro-choice, or supporting marriage equality. As examples, in each of these cases, Bishop Tobin was compelled to express his displeasure, not as an individual, but as a representative of the Catholic Church. As that representative, he holds quite a bit of power over the shaping of political decisions, whether it be exacerbating an uproar over the name of a tree, excoriating former Representative Patrick Kennedy, hindering the expansion of health care coverage, and preventing full marriage equality (which is as clear of a case as I could imagine that creates a government-sponsored, special privilege for religion).

I do think having a discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of any policy are important. And arguments will be based on individuals’ worldviews. But there can often be overt religiosity that tries to pass itself for reasonable debate….

And that’s just not right.