Posted on

Fortnight Against Freedom

In the United States, Roman Catholic bishops have called for an alliterative “Fortnight for Freedom” to run from June 21, the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas Moore, to July 4. The bishops are calling on the faithful to use these two weeks for prayer, study and action, specifically regarding the HHS mandate, requiring employers to provide reproductive services as part of their health care. The Catholic Church, as well as many other religious, anti-reproductive rights groups, have decided this is an abridgment of their religious freedom and are waging a political and public relations war against the mandate.

Here in Providence, Bishop Thomas Tobin held a special mass and prayer breakfast at the Cathedral of Saints Peter & Paul bright and early on Tuesday morning to kick off two weeks of anti-Obamacare political partisanship. Of course, that’s not how Tobin characterized this effort to the 400 plus believers in attendance:

We need to emphasize first of all what this commitment to the defense of religious freedom is not all about. This exercise is not primarily about the Church’s teaching on contraception, although that teaching of the Church is very clear and valid. This is not a statement about women’s health or national health coverage, although that too is a very legitimate issue. Nor is this an exercise of the church participating in partisan election politics during this election year, although Catholics certainly should be and must be involved in that process as well. The defense of religious freedom that we proclaim today is just that: the defense of religious freedom.

Later, Tobin reiterated the the Fortnight for Freedom:

…is not primarily political, it is above all a matter of faith.

Tobin then goes on to explain where he got his marching orders from: Pope Benedict. The pontiff recently warned visiting U.S. bishops about the proponents of “radical secularism” who seek to stifle the church’s proclamation of “unchanging moral truths” that can be found through the church teachings on natural law. (CatholicNews.com)

The Fortnight for Freedom is truly aimed not at the average American but at the Catholic laity, “engaged, articulate and well-informed,” who have an obligation, mandated by God, to confront politicians on issues of concern to the Catholic hierarchy, especially reproductive health care issues. As Tobin explains:

This is your task. This is your mission. This is your fight. It is my task… to inspire you, to motivate you and to encourage you. It is your task to go into the world and fight the battle, challenge politicians, and change unjust laws.

It is telling that at a forum ostensibly defending freedom of religion and conscience the phrase “separation of church and state” was never once uttered, even though Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and JFK, just to name three of countless examples, considered such an idea to be the bedrock of true religious liberty. Indeed, Tobin expresses nearly the exact opposite of this essential concept when he says:

It is your vocation, dear brothers and sisters, to transform the secular order into the Kingdom of God.

and later:

We believe that we are endowed with dignity and freedom, and first among those freedoms is the freedom to serve the one who created us…

So much for the values we Americans hold dear. The Kingdom of God does not sound like a place where democracy, or freedom of conscience, could possibly be welcomed. The Kingdom of God sounds exactly like what it is: theocratic rule by a religious elite. An unbiased look at the current and past make-up of the Catholic Church gives one a full picture of what this theocratic Kingdom of God will look like.

The interpretation of the First Amendment advanced by Bishop Tobin and the Fortnight of Freedom is Orwellian in nature. Democracy becomes theocracy. Freedom becomes servitude.

Let’s face it: Real freedom of religion and conscience can only come when, as JFK so eloquently put it 52 years ago, “separation of church and state is absolute.”

Posted on

Anti-Choice Zealots Hold Medical Bill Hostage


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

Right now there is no statute regarding the licensing of genetic counselors in Rhode Island, opening the door for those without appropriate training and codes of ethics to exploit and potentially harm patients. Fifteen states have licensure laws, and seventeen more have bills in consideration or preparing to be introduced.

On Wednesday, a Senate subcommittee discussed a bill that could make Rhode Island the 16th state to permit counselors to give advice about their potential medical future based on what can be gleaned from their genes.

Rhode Island’s bill was crafted by Senators Perry, Nesselbush, Sosnowski, Miller and Pichardo. It is a fine bill and has the complete approval of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.  Genetic Counselors from Rhode Island are keen to see the bill passed, as it speaks to their professionalism and commitment to proper patient care. Passage of such a bill should be an easy slam dunk, as it will prevent patients from being victimized by the unscrupulous and the improperly educated.

So of course this bill can’t be passed by our General Assembly. Why? Because anti-abortion rights activists have stymied the bill for years. Let that sink in. For years versions of this bill have been advanced, only to be continually sidelined by activists like Barth E. Bracy, Executive Director of Rhode Island Right to Life, who said, in 2010:

Genetic counseling can be used for good or for evil, in the same way that fire can be used to cook food or burn down a house. Insofar as genetic counseling can be used in order to enhance and sustain human life and well being, it is a good thing. And we agree that the State of Rhode Island has an interest in regulating the practice of genetic counseling… Our primary concern regarding the Genetic Counseling Licensure Act is to include at least some conscience protection for genetic counselors who do not accept abortion as a valid treatment option in cases where some disability or undesired trait is possible, probable, or even present in an unborn child.

The position statement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors is quite clear on the issue of reproductive freedom:

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM: NSGC supports the right of all individuals and couples to make reproductive choices. These include using information from genetic counseling and/or testing to decide whether to pursue a pregnancy, to utilize assisted reproductive technologies, to prepare for the birth and future needs of their offspring, to make an adoption plan, or to end a pregnancy. NSGC firmly believes that reproductive decisions should be made in the context of unbiased and comprehensive information, free from discrimination or coercion.

As a result of this conflict between the medical professionals of the NSGC and the anti-abortion zealots represented by Bracy, a so-called conscience amendment was added to the bill:

5-86-8. Counseling concerning abortion.- Nothing in this chapter may be construed to require any genetic counselor to participate in counseling with respect to abortion, nor shall licensing of any genetic counselor be contingent upon participation in such counseling with respect to abortion, and the refusal of the genetic counselor to participate in such counseling with respect to abortion shall not form the basis for any claim of damages on account of the refusal or for any disciplinary or recriminatory action against the genetic counselor, provided that the genetic counselor clearly informs the patient, in a manner consistent with ethical standards… that he or she will not participate in counseling with respect to abortion and offers to give the patient a list of licensed councilors in the state. The genetic counselor’s disclosure of non-participation and offer of a list of other licensed genetic counselors shall be made at the start of the counseling relationship and at other appropriate times, if any, based on the genetic counselor’s professional judgement.

Steve Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU, noted, in a letter to Senator Perry that this amendment:

…Would allow genetic counselors to refuse to counsel “with respect to abortion,” a counselor could potentially use this as an opening to, for example, withhold information about potential fetal abnormalities from women who are pregnant or considering becoming pregnant. A counselor could, by omission, mislead a patient about her options when serious fetal abnormalities are detected late in the pregnancy. A counselor could even suggest that no other options are available, but so long as the counseling was otherwise “consistent with ethical standards,” the amendment could appear to immunize the counselor from any state regulation or sanction.

In other words, it seems that the bill to license genetic counselors, with this amendment intact, would do nothing to assure the public that genetic counselors are professionals bound by a code of professional ethics to serve the best interests of their patients, because the bill will contain a loophole that will allow potential licensed genetic counselors to place their own consciences above that of their patients rights and needs. As a result, the ACLU proposed small modifications to the language, but these modifications could not win the support of Bracy’s RIRTL.

Speaking at the subcommittee meeting Wednesday evening, Benjamin Brown, a 4th year medical student speaking on behalf of Medical Students for Choice, put it quite well:

What concerns me here is that you have heard from the genetic councilors in the room that it is not within their code of ethics not to discuss abortion. And you have heard from other people speaking today that that is a professional requirement. So why would it be necessary to include this language about not talking about abortion if people are going to be acting within their code of ethics of their profession which states that they must discuss abortion? So to me this language makes no sense, it has nothing to do with professional regulation, and it has nothing to do with the professional standard practice of the profession of genetic counseling. It has to do with the fact that there are people who want to restrict access to abortion. This language has no purpose except to give an anti-choice genetic councilor room to hide behind a legal excuse for not providing information about abortion when the code of professional ethics says that you should have given that information, they can say, “Well, but I practice in Rhode Island.” [emphasis mine]

We should be clear at this point: The genetic counselors in Rhode Island would greatly prefer a clean version of this bill bill, one without the amendment, but so desperate are they to get some sort of licensing structure approved that they are willing to make a deal with the devil. They are willing to take the bill with the amendment. But what they might not realize is the precedent they are setting here. Paula Hodges, of Planned Parenthood, said it well:

There is a broader concern …  that with the approval of such an amendment this committee will have all but formalized the practice of allowing legislation regarding liscensure in the medical field to be held hostage until the wishes of those opposed to abortion are considered and incorporated into the bill’s language.
…
We know that the Rhode Island ACLU has offered specially crafted improvements to this language which has not been adopted. Regardless, should this committee approve this amendment, with or without improvements, we head down a path where we all meet in these hearings, year after year, as each type of profession seeks to routinely improve or expand its scope of practice. The irrelevant demands of abortion opponents will need to be placated year after year.

The genetic counselors of Rhode Island are just following their code of ethics in capitulating to the unreasonable and irrelevant demands of anti-choice zealots like Barth Bracy and RIRTL. They are seeking to protect the interests of their patients at any cost, counting on their national group’s code of ethics to carry them through the ethical morass created by the amendment. Right now all fourteen people covered under this bill are pro-choice, but what of the future? What is to prevent someone who is anti-choice from becoming licensed and withholding information that would serve the best interests of their patients? In the amended bill, nothing prevents this.

Senator Nesselbush early on pointed out that the language in the bill is specifically crafted for those who are not pro-choice. Is it really necessary in our society to start crafting two sets of laws, those that cater to the whims of the religious, and those that serve the rest of us? With all the trumped up fear mongering being spread about such nonsense as Sharia law in America, why are we unable to make the small cognitive leap to the emergence of a two-tiered justice system respecting conservative Christian values?

Further, since when has the General Assembly had any luck crafting these last minute conscience clauses to their bills? Those who remember the much less than satisfactory civil unions bill of last year may recall that any rights such a bill ostensibly granted were seriously undercut by the Corvese amendment, which in some cases may have taken away rights enjoyed by committed same-sex couples who had gone to the trouble of establishing durable powers of attorney for each other. This genetic counseling licensure bill with the amendment included may have a similar effect of establishing a short term gain but a long term loss in the quality of the counselors licensed as anti-choice advocates move into the field, perhaps to work at one of the many fake pregnancy counseling centers that exist only to trick women into not realizing all their health care options.

When a group of bright, committed medical professionals, with the full support of the medical establishment, presents itself to the legislature and asks for legislation that will serve to protect the integrity of their profession and the health of their patients, the legislature needs to listen to them, and not to anti-choice cranks who care nothing for the health and safety of anyone save for the the unborn.

This bill should be passed, immediately and without any amendments.

But don’t hold your breath.

Posted on

The Bishop Has No Clothes


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

Many Roman Catholics look to those who hold exalted positions within the hierarchy of the church for guidance on moral issues, but if polls on the behavior of Catholics in their personal lives regarding such issues as birth control and marriage equality are any indication, most Catholics find their morality elsewhere.

Still, this does not stop some high ranking prelates, such as Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Diocese of Providence, from publicly pontificating on issues of concern to the church and using his not inconsiderable political power to influence the General Assembly to hue closely to Catholic ideals. As reported on RI Future, “The President, the entire congressional delegation, the governor and the House all would support marriage equality in Rhode Island. But ‘probably two handfuls’ of Catholic state senators still stand in the way.” Unfortunately, those two handfuls of Catholic senators give the impression of answering to Bishop Tobin first, and their constituents and the Constitution of the United States second.

Tobin is unafraid to take strong stands to advance the political agenda of his church in a very public way. In 2009 the bishop famously denied Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy the sacrament of communion because Kennedy supported a woman’s right to choose in matters of abortion and family planning.

Speaking on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly show in December of 2009, Tobin said:

I think the Church has every right and indeed the obligation to be at the table in these important questions of public policy and certainly the bishops have been for a long time now involved in the question [of] health care and the legislation that’s been developing and lots of other issues too and as I’ve often said, if the church, not just the Catholic church, but the religious community, if we don’t bring these values, this spiritual vision to these discussions, who else will do that?

O’Reilly, to his credit, pushed back against Tobin somewhat, asking why he would deny legislators sacraments in the case of supporting abortion rights but not in the case of a politician supporting capital punishment. Tobin differentiated between abortion and capitol punishment:

Abortion we believe is intrinsically wrong, it’s always wrong. There are no circumstances under which abortion can be justified… the church has been very clear and very consistent about that. However the church has also taught pretty consistently the death penalty, while it is not necessary and probably immoral in our time, at least in theory there may be circumstances that allows the death penalty to be a moral option.

To a non-Catholic Tobin’s distinction may seem arbitrary or overly legalistic, but the bishop, when speaking on matters of Catholic theology and doctrine should be taken at his word. Tobin clearly intends to ground his public comments on political issues in morality as interpreted by the Catholic Church. He said as much recently on the May 15, 2012 Buddy Cianci Show. Talking about marriage equality, Tobin said:

We don’t want to fight with [proponents of same-sex marriage] but we do have the right and I think the duty to comment on these issues and the pieces of legislation we think are objectionable and we’ll try to do that but we’ll try to do that respectfully.

Odd then, that even given the distinction he makes between between abortion and capital punishment, Tobin would be more concerned with opposing marriage equality and standing up for such seemingly trivial matters as the prayer banner in Cranston or the cross in Woonsocket than in standing up against capital punishment. These other issues are not life or death propositions, though certainly the quality of life would be improved immeasurably for many in our state by the passage of a marriage equality bill.

Clarifying his position on the death penalty through the lens of the Pleau case, Tobin explains why he does not feel qualified to speak out on this issue on the May 10, 2012 John DePetro Show:

The position of the church on capital punishment is rather clear, that we do do not think that the use of capital punishment in necessary or appropriate in our culture and in our society today. I’ve intentionally stayed away from this particular issue because it gets quickly involved in constitutional issues and state’s rights issues and federal law and local law that I’m really not qualified to talk about. So while in principle I would support the rejection of the use of capital punishment I’ve intentionally stayed away from this particular [case] because it does get rather involved in technical legal issues that I’m not at all qualified to address.

Elaborating further, if a bit repetitively, Tobin adds:

…there are some technical legal questions involved and again that’s why I’ve deliberately tried to stay out of that issue because it’s well beyond my competence to try and say where the Federal law begins and where the state law begins and the responsibilities of the federal government and governor. While [Catholics] certainly reject the use of capital punishment in our culture and our society today because it is, again, the taking of a human life, we don’t think it’s necessary. This is a very complex issue that involves law and the Constitution on the one hand, but very deep and personal and heartfelt emotions on the other and it’s enormously difficult to balance the two.

So with this deft bit of verbal lawyering Tobin divorces himself from having to speak out on the issue of capital punishment because he is not a lawyer. This makes sense, in a way, because Tobin is a theologian, not a lawyer, and should optimally only be engaged in theological pursuits and providing moral guidance for the Catholics in his church. But how do we square Tobin’s reluctance with his earlier assertion that he and his church “…have the right and I think the duty to comment on these issues and the pieces of legislation we think are objectionable…”

Tobin can certainly sound lawyerly when he wants to. Speaking about the Cross in Woonsocket now at the center of a church/state separation debate, Tobin said:

It certainly has nothing to do with the separation of church and state, this is not the establishment of a denomination, it’s not the establishment of a particular church or the recognizing of a church by the state, this is a cultural symbol…

One might be led to believe that the Woonsocket Cross is not “a very complex issue that involves law and the Constitution” that Tobin is “not at all qualified to address” but is instead a simple moral issue that the bishop feels well qualified to speak out on. On this issue and others, Tobin is not prepared to claim legal ignorance but instead speaks out forcefully.

On the May 10th DePetro Show Tobin decried President Obama’s recent declaration that his position has evolved and that he now personally supports marriage equality. Tobin said:

It’s a very, very strange evolution. The man has no real moral foundation, moral compass. This is clearly politically driven… It’s unfortunate that the leader of our nation doesn’t have a stronger moral compass to direct him… and you know, some of the other politicians who have chimed in on this I think have the same lack of moral foundation, whether you talk about President Obama or Vice President Biden or the Senators, Whitehouse and Reed or the Congressmen Langevin and Cicilline, none of them have a strong moral foundation or compass, there’s not a single profile in courage among the lot.

Speaking of Reed, and the rest of the Rhode Island delegation, Tobin added:

I think the whole group … are driven by the Democratic agenda.

and

In many of these cases, for some of these politicians it’s more important for them to be a Democrat than a Catholic and in many cases they’ve abandoned the basic teaching of the church.

Let’s go back to Tobin’s attack on Congressman Kennedy, a Democrat. Let’s go back to the silly issue over the Christmas Tree, or Holiday Tree, as Governor Chafee’s office called it. Even though plenty of evidence was produced to show that former Governor Carcieri, a Republican, had also referred to the tree in the Rhode Island State House as a Holiday Tree on more than one occasion, Tobin never had an issue with the designation until Governor Chafee took office. Chafee, an independent who strongly favors marriage equality, is disliked by Bishop Tobin whereas Carcieri found in Tobin a staunch supporter.

This is likely why Tobin will not take a strong stance on the Pleau case. Governor Chafee is making a very strong, moral case that Rhode Island’s long and historic opposition to the death penalty necessitates exhausting every legal option, up to and including the Supreme Court, to prevent a Rhode Island citizen from facing the death penalty on a Federal level. Though it is a complex legal case, the morality of the death penalty is a comparatively simple moral stance to take from the point of view of a Roman Catholic, but Tobin balks. Though the bishop would, in theory, oppose the death penalty on Catholic theological grounds, he seems to not want to do anything that might make it appear that he is supporting the governor, a political enemy.

It should surprise no one that Bishop Tobin’s political bent is not progressive or liberal. It is right-wing and authoritarian in the worst way. He is anti-gay rights, anti-women’s rights, and even opposed to the constitutional separation of church and state. Tobin is a theocrat. Even the most progressive stance he espouses, that the death penalty is at least in theory morally wrong is shrouded in caveats:

…we do do not think that the use of capital punishment is necessary or appropriate in our culture and in our society today.

Note that Tobin qualifies that statement with the word, “today.” The death penalty was appropriate in the past (perhaps when the Catholic Church had nearly unlimited political power) and may one day be morally correct in the future (in that nightmare world where the Catholic Church has massive political power once more.) It is only today, when the moral certainty of the Catholic church is marginalized by secular society, that capital punishment is considered wrong by Tobin.

Tobin’s reactionary politics may be abhorrent to progressives and humanists, but in truth little more can be expected from a man so deeply vested in the ancient theocratic mindset prevalent in today’s Catholic Church. I would venture that Tobin’s tenure as Bishop has been devastating to Rhode Island Catholics especially since under his tenure the percentage of Catholics in the state has dropped to 44% according to a study by the Association of Statisticians of American religious Bodies. Indeed, Rhode Island can no longer claim to be the most Catholic state in the United States, that distinction now belongs to Massachusetts.

Worse than his politics is Tobin’s style of public discourse. On the marriage equality debate, Tobin said:

…let me emphasize [when] we [the Roman Catholic Church] participate in these public debates it’s never intended to be insulting or personally offensive [to people of] same-sex orientation. They are children of God and certainly our brothers and sisters in the community.

Apparently the insulting and personally offensive comments are reserved for those working to preserve the reproductive rights of women. On the Providence Diocese website RICatholic.com, The American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, Humanists of Rhode Island, Rhode Island Medical Society, Brown Medical Students for Choice and Catholics for Choice were referred to as “radical promoters of death” for speaking out against laws that seek to limit a woman’s right to access birth control, including abortion.

Tobin equates atheism with a lack of morality, though even the most conservative Catholic theologians understand that people can be moral without a belief in God. Tobin is quick to make gross, sweeping characterizations about non-believers. Speaking on the April 24th John DePetro Show about the cross in Woonsocket, Tobin makes the following, almost paranoid statement:

Do we want a state and a nation completely free of any expressions of faith or references to God or moral values or spiritual values order we want a state and a nation where these things are part of our life and part of our culture. I think the church, the religious community, the faith community has so much to contribute to our citizens, to our individuals but to our common life together that’s the kind of nation state we have had historically, but unfortunately these other forces of secularism and atheism are encroaching upon us. You know the governor has that famous quote he said that “the world is changing” well I hope it’s not changing that much because then we’re going to be completely separated from God and we’ll be living truly in an atheistic culture and society and i don’t think most of our people want that.

Tobin fears living “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.” Tobin fears this because in this America he would just be just another priest, ministering to his flock, watching his religion become ever more redundant in a world that has left ancient and medieval beliefs behind. By the way, the above quote is from John F. Kennedy in his address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association from September 12, 1960.

Tobin seems well acquainted with this former president. Not only is former Congressman Patrick Kennedy JFK’s nephew, Tobin obliquely referenced the first and so far only Catholic president when speaking of the Congressional delegation from Rhode Island, saying, “there’s not a single profile in courage among the lot.” Profiles in Courage is a 1955 Pulitzer Prize winning book by JFK that “describes acts of bravery and integrity by eight United States Senators throughout the Senate’s history.” Tobin knows the popularity of JFK among his Catholic constituency, and his use of the presidents book title to disparage our present crop of senators and congressmen is particularly appalling given Kennedy’s expressed views on church/state separation.

Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, famously said, “…when one mixes religion and politics, one gets politics” and that’s something that Bishop Tobin should pay more attention to. The more involved the Catholic Church gets involved in politics the less it becomes a church and the more it becomes just another conservative political lobby. Mythological belief systems may work to undergird a system of personal morality for some people but actively working to enforce those personal values on everyone in our secular society is theocratic, anti-Democratic and anti-American.

Bishop Thomas Tobin frocks himself in the garments of moral authority and spiritual leadership but his conservative politicking on social issues reveal him as a naked hypocrite. When it comes to morality and ethics, the Bishop has no clothes.

Posted on

Jolicoeur Square: Not So Unique in Woonsocket


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
In 1921 a war weary nation was pulling itself together after the horrors and losses of the Great War, later and unfortunately to be known as World War I. Cities and towns across the nation began the process of mourning and memorializing their dead, and Woonsocket, Rhode Island was no exception. That year the small mill city dedicated ten “squares” to Woonsocket natives who had fallen in the war. The squares were set at intersections throughout the city, and dedicated during a visit from the supreme commander of the allied forces during the war, Ferdinand Foch, on tour in the United States after retirement.
Some of the squares dedicated seem to be newly minted, in that there were previously no official names for the locations, but others had names long established. Having now located and extensively photographed all ten of the squares on May 7, 2012, I can now attest to the fact that it is only the monument erected on Jolicoeur Square that has any kind of religious imagery. Worse, it is only Jolicoeur Place where one can find any evidence that any WWI soldiers were honored over ninety years ago for their service to this country. The other nine squares have been forgotten, and any trace of the men who were honored is gone, if it were ever there to begin with.
I will start from the south and work my north, in the order I came upon them.
The intersection of Providence St. and Smithfield Rd. became Riendeau Square in memory of Alderic Riendeau. Right on the border of Smithfield, right next to the Gaston A. Ayotte Jr. Baseball field is a little patch of land with a concrete marker that may have once honored Alderic Riendeau, but it has sadly been stripped of most of it’s metal. Since I did not even find this much evidence of previous honors at the other sites I visited, it’s also possible that this tiny monument had nothing to do with WWI or Riendeau.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next up was the intersection of Knight St., Cottage St. and Logee St. which became Roberge Square in memory of Lionel Roberge. This well maintained micro-park is located in one of the better sections of Woonsocket, a very picturesque spot. There is no sign of anything to do with Lionel Roberge, but there is a lovely sign honoring firefighter Jeffrey C. Boisvert. There is also a clock and a couple of benches.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The intersection of Green St. and Bernon St. was named for Joseph R. Coutu. Here is a wide street with no sign of any park, monument, benches or markers. There is nothing here but the Cool Corner Creamery and the Church of the Acts, which is a pretty amazing looking church, what with it’s negative space Jesus sign and red, white and blue Christmas lights spelling out JESUSAVES with the USA in the middle lit for emphasis. Coutu Square is lacking one thing, however: any evidence that Joe Coutu was once honored here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Normandin Square stands in stark contrast to Coutu Square. Named for Sgt. Oscar S. Normandin, the site is located at the intersection of Court St. and Front St, and was previously called Court Square. Actually, strike that. It is still called Court Square on Google Maps. The square may have been renamed, but the name didn’t stick (which, as we will see, is a common occurance.) Sgt. Oscar Normandin’s little patch of land was forgotten, and the name “Court Square” is still used today. The statue on the square is dedicated to veterans of the Philippine-American War (1899-1902). It’s a beautiful statue and the area is quite well maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flynn Square was another name that didn’t stick. Named for Lt. Harold F Flynn, (I think you got better square locations in the city depending on your military rank, but that’s just a theory) the space is today still known as Depot Square, because that’s where the Providence-Woonsocket train depot is located. The train depot today houses the Blackstone River Valley Authority, and operates as a sort of tourist center. I will say that Woonsocket is a bit rundown and beat up, but it is a singularly beautiful New England mill town, rich in history and beauty. Still, there’s no sign here of Lt. Flynn or his brave sacrifice.

 

 

 

Across from the old train depot is a mini-park called Veterans Memorial Park maintained by the Woonsocket Lions Club. Since the mini-park technically abuts the lost location of Flynn Square I checked it out as well. A plaque talks of the park being ravaged by the flood of August 1955. I wonder if that’s the same flood that caused the roads around the Jolicoeur monument to be re-routed, leaving the cross in the center of a parking lot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market Square is the cultural and historical center of Woonsocket these days. here is located the Museum of Work and Culture, a terrific day trip with a fantastic gift shop. Also located here is Ye Olde English Fish and Chips, which has the best seafood chowder and fish and chips in Rhode Island, if not New England. But did you know that Market Square is not officially called Market Square? No, the name of this place is Young Square, named in the memory of WWI veteran Andrew F. Young. Only problem is, the name didn’t stick, and everyone calls it Market Square. If you look hard enough you might find a marker for WWI vet Narcisse Joyal Jr., but of Andrew Young I found no sign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The intersection of Blackstone St. and Harris Ave. was once known as Randal Square, but since 1921 the name has officially been Curtis Square, named for Pvt. Arthur Curtis. There’s a monument here for General Casmir Pulaski, who gave his life (I think) fighting for American Independence in 1779. There are no other markers at the small park. I’m pretty sure that few if any people who pass by this spot each day have ever heard of Arthur Curtis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Corner at the intersection of Cumberland, Social and Rathbun Streets shows no sign of having ever been once dedicated to the memory of Donatien Belhumeur. Perhaps for a very short time following its dedication in 1921 the intersection was occasionally referred to as Belhumeur Square, but when I asked a man who worked in a nearby business for the name of the place, he said “Social Corner.” He didn’t know and had never heard any other name for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filici Square, named in memory of WWI veteran Giovanni Filici is located at the corner of Social St. and Diamond Hill Rd. There is nothing there to indicate that this intersection was ever once thought special enough to be named in honor of a fallen patriot. There is nothing there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This photo essay could not be complete without paying a visit to Jolicoeur Square, even though it has by now been photographed extensively. My visit this morning was not greeted by retired veterans guarding it, as have been there in the past. The location is just a big parking lot, in the center of which rested the monument built for the Gagne brothers.  We can now be sure that Jolicoeur was not being honored by the monument, he only gave his name to the patch of land the Gagne monument rests upon. Had the monument not been built there, it is entirely possible that Jolicoeur’s tiny patch of land would be as forgotten as the squares of Flynn, Young, Normandin, Curtis, Coutu, Belhumeur, Filici, Roberge and Riendeau.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What else can be noticed about all the locations I visited? One thing stands out: The lack of any kind of religious imagery on any of the squares. The veterans are all honored with secular, not religious symbols and words. Outside the Jolicoeur location I did not see a single cross on publicly owned land. I did not read a single mention of God, or see any prayers. What I saw was imagery that expressed the heartfelt thanks of a citizenry wise enough to know that church and state should not be mixed.
Further proof? Here’s a Civil War Memorial located right in downtown Woonsocket. No prayers, no Gods, no crosses. Just a remembrance of fallen veterans that all Americans can appreciate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go back and look at the pictures from the Veterans Memorial Park. No religious imagery there, either.
It was only in 1952, when the Cold war was under way and the Godless Commies were stockpiling nukes that the United States started to blur the line between church and state. In Woonsocket, this took the form of placing a cross on top of the monument to the Gagne brothers. It wasn’t necessary to do so, as we’ve seen, there are plenty of excellent tributes to Woonsocket’s veterans scattered throughout the city, none of which sport a religious message.
Another thing this research shows is that there is nothing intrinsically special about Jolicoeur Square. It is only one of ten locations throughout Woonsocket, and the only reason anyone knows of it is because it was chosen as the location of the Gagne brothers memorial. There is no particular reason that the Gagne brothers memorial needs to be on the Jolicoeur Square. There is no real connection between the two families (as far as I know) aside from the shared French-Canadian heritage. It therefore follows that the Gagne Memorial can be moved without any insult to Jolicoeur’s family, or to the Gagnes.
The fact is that none of the places I visited are considered in any way to be special areas for fallen WWI soldiers. This is not my opinion, it’s the opinion of the generations of people who have ignored, renamed or paved over these squares. If we want to vest these locations with specialness once more, then we need to not single out the one location that happens to have an inappropriate cross on top, but include all the locations in some sort of larger effort. Hopefully this essay can be sen as the beginning of such an effort.
As far as Jolicoeur Square goes, the land (or some other piece of land) could and should be re-dedicated to William Jolicoeur,  perhaps with a small plaque or sign. A similar plaque or sign could be installed throughout the city at the other nine sites as well, especially those sites that have been completely lost or forgotten in time. I don’t expect that anyone in Woonsocket is prepared to start calling Market Square “Young Square” in contradiction to years of familiarity, but a small sign remembering the valor of Andrew F. Young might be in order.
What this research shows is that a compromise is possible between those who want the cross to stay on the Gagne monument, and those who want it removed. The cross can be moved to private property with no insult to the Gagne or Jolicoeur families. The Jolicouer Square can be re-dedicated, along with nine other forgotten heroes, and church and state can continue to be protected from each other.
Posted on

Woonsocket Cross Built in 1952, Not 1921


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

There is a lot of confusion right now about the Woonsocket Cross at the center of a controversy caused by a letter sent by the Freedom from Religion Foundation to Mayor Leo T. Fontaine demanding the removal of said cross from public land. I don’t want to address the various legal arguments surrounding the validity of the First Amendment claims being made as regards the cross, instead I want to discuss the actual history of the cross itself, because when I guested on The John DePetro Show to discuss the issue, and later that day when I attended to pro-Cross rally, there was information going around that was just plain wrong.

The current story of the cross is that it was erected in 1921 in honor of World War I hero and Woonsocket native William Jolicoeur. There it sat until 1952, when the monument was rededicated to three brothers who died in service to the country during and immediately following World War II, Alexandre, Henri and Louis Gagne, sons of Bernadette Gagne. Originally the monument was an island in the middle of the street, but after flooding in 195? traffic patterns were moved and the monument found itself in the middle of a Fire Station parking lot. There the monument stood, mostly untended and ignored, falling into terrible disrepair, until the FFRF made their complaint and the story made national headlines. The monument, according to this story, is 91 years old. Much of this is simply wrong.

The truth is that the monument was built in 1952. In 1921 the small patch of land, a traffic island really, was dedicated to William Jolicoeur, called, because of the French immigrants that made up the majority of Woonsocket at the time, “Place Jolicoeur.” At the time of the dedication of Place Jolicoeur nine other sites were also dedicated to fallen Woonsocket WWI vets in ceremonies celebrating a visit from the supreme commander of allied forces during the war, Marshall Foch.

There was no monument at Place Jolicoeur when it was dedicated. Above is a photo on a monument site from a Woonsocket newspaper showing William Jolicoeur’s brother Albert placing a wreath on the telephone pole. Had the cross been in existence then, Albert would have laid the wreath on the cross, I am sure.

It was in 1952 that the monument, complete with the controversial cross on top, was erected on the small traffic island known as Place Jolicoeur. This makes sense, because if you think about it, WWI memorials were seldom adorned with crosses or other religious symbols. Note that this case seems rather singular in the nation. Why would this particular monument, if erected in 1921, be such an obvious exception to the rule of erecting secular monuments to our fallen soldiers? There were nine other sites around the City of Woonsocket that were dedicated to WWI veterans who gave their lives, but there is only one cross.

The monument itself is not dedicated to William Jolicoeur. The land the monument rests on is, but the monument itself is only dedicated to the three Gagne brothers. There was no “re-dedication” as some news outlets reported, there was simply the dedication of the cross monument in honor of the Gagne brothers and their long suffering mother that was constructed on Place Jolicoeur. You can read this on the plaque:

PLACE JOLICOEUR
DEDICATED BY MARSHALL FOCH
NOV. 13, 1921
IN MEMORY OF WILLIAM JOLICOEUR
WORLD WAR I HERO
—— — —–
MEMORIAL IN HONOR OF
GAGNE BROTHERS
WORLD WAR II
ALEXANDRE – HENRI – LOUIS
SONS OF BERNADETTE GAGNE

DEDICATED BY D.A.V. MAY 30, 1952

According to the lawyer advising the Woonsocket City Council, Woonsocket allowed “disabled American veterans, a group called the Eagles” permission to build a monument of their choosing in March, 1952. The photo shows the dedication of the monument from May 1952:

 

This more accurate history of the monument changes some of the context of the monument’s historicity. The monument was constructed at a time of Cold War fear in the United States, and religiosity, particularly Christian religiosity, experienced a huge uptick. “In God We Trust” was added to our money in 1956, “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and President Truman issued the first Presidential Declaration in favor of The National Day of Prayer in 1952.

An anti-Communistic religious fervor had gripped the country, and was being expressed through very public displays of overt Christianity. The wall separating Church and State was allowed to crumble during this period. Seen in this light, the Woonsocket Cross is simply another manifestation of anti-Constitutional religious encroachment into our secular government.

As a result, I think the cross needs to be moved to private land. This is my personal opinion, and should not be confused as having anything to do with the official position of any group I am affiliated with, or any other members of my family. I would add that I know how emotional this issue can be for veterans and families of veterans, and I know that this issue is not as simple as I’ve outlined it here. This is simply an opportunity to share my thinking on the subject as it currently stands.

Posted on

The National Day of Fear and Desperation


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

Each year the President of the United States signs a proclamation encouraging all Americans to pray on the first Thursday in May, a national religious ritual first formalized by Congress in 1952. This year, that date falls on May 3rd, and both President Obama and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee have declared their support for the National Day of Prayer. To the millions of Americans who do not believe in prayer or the constitutionality of state endorsed religion this annual ritual is viewed as un-American, blasphemous, or some combination of the two.

As Rhode Island’s founder, Roger Williams once noted, “Forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.”

Putting aside for the moment the legal and religious arguments against the National Day of Prayer, let’s ask one simple question: Does prayer work? The answer, at least according to those who have actually sought to study and measure the efficacy of prayer is no. Study after study shows that people who are prayed for do no better in recovery than those who are not. Even those who believe in the power of prayer, despite all the contrary evidence, sometimes quip, “God answers all prayer, but sometimes the answer is ‘No.’”

So if prayer has no measurable effect on the wellbeing of our nation, why do we still insist on a National Day of Prayer, despite the insult the event hurls at millions of believing and non-believing Americans? If we are going to issue proclamations encouraging all Americans to engage in what has been scientifically shown to be an ineffective waste of time, why not declare a National Day of Homeopathy? Or hold a nation wide Bigfoot hunt?

Obama’s proclamation from 2011 quotes President Abraham Lincoln’s recollections about prayer, “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.  My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for the day.” Lincoln shepherded the country during its most desperate hour, and was more sorely vexed than any other President in history. Note that Lincoln was driven to prayer only when circumstances overwhelmed him and wise council was scarce. Here was a man pushed to the absolute limits of desperation, and in his time of weakness, he found solace in prayer.

I can understand the feeling of being alone, desperate and trapped by circumstances, and I can understand the appeal of and the emotional need for prayer under the most dire of circumstances, but I would argue that America, as a people, as a country and as an ideal are not in so desperate a position as to need a mandate driving us all to our knees to implore a mythological being for some sort of miracle. We are better than that.

It was not the power of prayer that threw the yoke of British rule off the backs of the colonists in the days of the Revolutionary War. It was the blood of heroes, the strategies of generals, the genius of diplomats, and the vision of Enlightenment ideals that did so. WWII was not won by the hand of God but by the economic, scientific and military might of the United States when it finally entered the war. And when humans walked on the moon, prayers were certainly issued, but it was the mathematicians and scientists, running millions of calculations and experiments, that got our astronauts safely to our nearest celestial neighbor and back.

Praying for a miracle is the ultimate wish for a quick fix, a lottery ticket for the soul. We all want something for nothing, but the truth is that nothing worth having is free, and nothing worth doing is easy. In the throes of an emergency all the prayers in the world are as nothing compared to the efforts of one rescue worker or doctor. As founding father Benjamin Franklin once said, “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

The United States is facing some real problems right now, but none of these problems are going to magically solve themselves, and no God is going to burst forth from the heavens to deliver us. What is needed is for Americans to embrace the ideals of reason, compassion, optimism and action. What is needed is for Americans to roll up their sleeves and get to work fixing the problems our country faces with the power of their minds, the strength of their muscles and the love of their hearts.

The National Day of Prayer is simply an admission of our desperation as a people. Through its celebration we tell each other and the world that we are out of ideas, that we are desperate and lack wise council. Each year on this day we fall to our knees as a nation and loudly exclaim that we have given up, and we need a miracle. Meanwhile the rest of the world builds and innovates, making us feel ever more inconsequential, creating spiraling and negative feedback that reinforces our desperation, a desperation that can only be met by more prayer. We become prayer junkies, always looking for the next quick fix, always looking for that impossibly rare thing called a miracle.

We do not need a National Day of Prayer and we never have. We need to get to work.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Ron Paul no Friend to the Non-Religious

So last night Ron Paul gave a rousing speech in New Hampshire after he lost the primary there. He went on and on about FREEDOM of course, his supporters apparently unconcerned that Paul’s concept of freedom does not include a woman’s right to choose, many forms of birth control or laws that protect freedom, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul’s idea of FREEDOM is strictly a kind of faux free market libertarianism. Rousing the libertarian base, he claims that all problems will be solved by the free market. For instance, if you get really sick, and your health care doesn’t cover a procedure, the free market allows you to find a charity, enter indentured servitude, or die.

Problem solved.

But Paul did something unusual last night. In fact, as Republican candidates go he did something almost unheard of. The candidate obliquely mentioned Atheists and their right not to practice religion. Here’s the link to that part of his speech.

Paul may play the role of a libertarian ideologue, but he’s no fool. He knows that the youth support he enjoys because of his anti-war and anti-war on drugs policies sports the fastest growing non-religious population in the country. His speeches about FREEDOM resonate with that crowd, and indeed he can be a compelling speaker, but is Paul being honest with the crowds about his true beliefs?

In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul may be a closeted Christian Fundamentalist of the worst kind. As Alternet reported:

A common misconception about the Ron Paul agenda is that he is a libertarian who just wants to let all humans live as they please. But Ron Paul is no libertarian; if not a Christian Reconstructionist himself, he is truly the best enabler a Reconstructionist could hope to have.

Ron Paul seeks to shrink the federal government to minimal size not because it intrudes in the lives of individuals, but because it stands in the way of allowing the states and localities to enact laws as they see fit — even laws that govern people’s behavior in their bedrooms.

I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, including the bit where Paul spoke to the openly segregationist John Birch Society, and revealed that he is entirely able to speak their language. Paul enjoys the support of such racist groups as Stormfront, as reported by Katha Pollitt at NPR:

No wonder they love him over at Stormfront, a white-supremacist website with neo-Nazi tendencies. In a multiple-choice poll of possible effects of a Paul presidency, the most popular answer by far was “Paul will implement reforms that increase liberty which will indirectly benefit White Nationalists.”

Atheists love it when they get mentioned in the larger political sphere. But we should be careful who we support and why. Religious opponents of atheism love to pull out the lie that Stalin, Mao and Hitler were motivated to murder and genocide by their lack of supernatural belief. Do we really want to reinforce that stereotype by supporting a man with racist, homophobic and misogynistic views, just because he uses the right buzzwords and tosses us the occasional shout out?

Hell no.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

What, Exactly, is the Secular Case Against Abortion?

The ProJo today reported that Barth E. Bracy, executive director of the Rhode Island State Right to Life Committee has retained Joseph S. Larisa Jr. to represent the group in “anticipation of challenging the creation of the so-called ‘health-benefits exchange.'” Since the recent session of the Rhode Island General assembly failed to pass any legislation that would have enabled individuals and small businesses to shop for health insurance (a key part of Obama’s health care reform package) many hope that Gov. Lincoln Chafee will Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniel’s lead and sign a health care exchange into existance via executive order.

Bracy’s statement is revealing:

It is tragic that a small group of determined pro-abortion officials is attempting an end-run around the General Assembly and around the Rhode Island Constitution in order to force Rhode Islanders to subsidize other people’s abortions under the guise of health-care reform.

This is a health care issue, but Bracy sees the issue as some sort of conspiracy. Bracy’s inane characterization of the process as a “small group of determined pro-abortion officials” operating “under the guise of health care reform” smacks of paranoia and delusion. The National Right to Life Committe promotes this paranoia on a national level, preventing any sort of rational debate on abortion. The movie they produced in 1984, The Silent Scream, has been criticized as being “riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations,” which are really just nice words for “lies.”

The truth is that there is no compelling, secular reason to oppose a woman’s right to abortion. Groups such as RI Right to Life are rightwing religious fronts trying to force their views on the general public through misinformation and legal maneuvering. For instance, the entire thrust of their legal challenge revolves around “whether the governor has the authority to create the exchange… without the legislature’s approval” not around the fundamental question of a woman’s right to choose. They are willing to hold hostage any attempt to rework our healthcare system over the issue of abortion.

There is something out there known as the Establishment Clause, sometimes refered to as “separation of church and state.” This was put into the Constitution because religious beliefs and secualr government do not wok well together. The only case that can be made against safe, legal abortion is religious. Religion does not belong in government.

Abortion is a fundamental human right, and it needs to be protected.

Posted on

My RIPTA conversation with Gordon Fox


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

Yesterday I wrote to Gordon Fox, asking him to help defend, not defund RIPTA. This is what I wrote:

I am writing to you because now is not the time to cut funds to RIPTA, now is the time to increase them. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but a functioning public transportation system is a strength for the community. Portland Oregon has a strong system, and they are better for it.

Please work on behalf of your constituents and all of RI to strengthen, rather than to weaken RIPTA.

This is perhaps the fourth or fifth email I have sent Gordon Fox. For the first time, he answered me:

Thank you very much for writing to me in support of an amendment to the state budget offered by Representative Jay O’Grady regarding funding at DOT and RIPTA.  Although I could not support the amendment this year due to the severe budget constraints, I have pledged to work with Reps. O’Grady, Arthur Handy and Teresa Tanzi in the future to continue our efforts to improve our state’s transportation system.

Meanwhile, I was proud to support Article 22 of the budget, which has now been signed into law, which creates a transportation trust fund and provides that incremental increases of transportation-related surcharges will be dedicated to the fund.  It will also reduce DOT’s reliance on borrowing and transition us to a pay-as-you-go system.

I appreciate your sentiments, and I thank you again for taking the time to write about this important issue.

The response was of course unsatisfactory, and indicative of the kind of politician Gordon Fox is. It is unsatisfactory because it does nothing to answer Fox’s complicity in the cuts RIPTA is planning. The loss of revenues to RI businesses and families will be devastating to our already fragile economy. It is indicative of the way Gordon Fox oprates because he does not take a stand on an issue, he simply pledges to “work with” those who have decided to.

Fox’s support for Article 22 of the budget is a rather silly statement. he voted for the budget, so he tacitly supported all the provisions therein. In owning the one small part of the budget that will give some of the funds from the Registry of Motor Vehicles to the DOT and RIPTA, he hopes to artificially inflate his support in the public’s eyes.

There’s a curious thing about Article 22. Under it, 20% of the monies collected in 2012 by the Registry of Motor Vehicles will go towards the “Intermodal Surface Transportation Fund” and this figure will increase each year by 20% until all collected monies are so directed. Fair enough. But this year we also passed the Voter ID bill, so we can expect that, under the increased onus of free IDs, revenues from the Registry will go down. After all, free means more people, longer lines, and less monies collected.

Posted on

At the “Civil Rights Under Attack” Forum

The RI Mobilization Committee sponsored an interesting array of speakers Wednesday night at the Beneficent Church in downtown Providence centered around the theme of Civil Rights. First up was Iman Ikram Ul-Haq, from Masjid Al-islam mosque, North Smithfield, who talked about Islamophobia. The Iman made some interesting observations about the recent attacks in Norway and the rush to judgement by the media in identifying the attacker as a Muslim terrorist when in fact the man was a white Christian militant. The audience in attendance split during the question and answer session over the idea of free speech. Some felt that free speech includes the right not to be offended, but others maintained that offensive speech needs to be protected. The Iman was very courteous but personally I feel that he should have given more thought as to how to confront Islamophobia in a constructive way.

Next up was Onna Moniz-John, of the NAACP and the Urban League, a tireless advocate for the elimination of racial profiling. She related her ongoing struggle to deal with this issue legislatively, and her disappointment that a bill in the recent legislative session was scuttled at the behest of the police chiefs from the various RI communities. (One of many disappointing outcomes in the latest session.) Racial profiling exists, and needs to be dealt with, and Ms. Moniz-John offered us a real route towards dealing with this problem. She is a very affecting speaker.

Next up was Will Lambek of the Olneyville Neighborhood Association and Marlon Cifuentes, talking about Secure Communities, an Orwellian-named government program that puts people from south of the border on the fast track to deportation without any hint of due process. This program had been ostensibly instituted to deal with the very worst violent offenders, but in practice has been used as a means by which to deport anyone for any reason. Efforts to dissociate states from this program have been successful in some states, including New York, but Attorney General Peter Kilmartin and Governor Lincoln Chafee have both ignored requests to meet on this issue.

Last to speak was John Prince of DARE, who spoke about the Prison Industrial Complex, and his own dealings with it. After serving more than his fair share of time for his youthful indiscretions, Prince has become a tireless fighter for prison reform. I feel that the way a society treats its prisoners is the metric by which the society should be judged. On this count, the United States is not doing so well.

One of the eeriest things revealed this night is how all these various problems are related in such a way as to lead a person of color directly from his malfunctioning school directly into the Prison Industrial Complex. A person may be racially profiled, pulled over, arrested on some pretense, run through the court system, and wind up in jail, beginning a life cycle that may result in years of incarceration. It was pointed out by an audience member that the privatization of prisons and the continuance of the failed war on drugs has created a real profit motive to continue the failing schools and the building of more prisons.

Over all it was a very informative evening of refreshing and positive activism within our community. There is much to be done, and I came away feeling that though the situation is dire, it is far from hopeless if we continue to work on these issues.

Posted on

State Senator Nicholas Kettle has Learned What, Exactly?

Yesterdays’s Projo ran a piece on freshman Senator Nicholas Kettle. Kettle also happens to be the youngest Senator at age 20. You might remember Kettle, who rode into office as a Republican Tea Party candidate with no experience whatsoever. He very soon established his Tea Party bona fides by insulting the homeless community in RI with disdainful and uncaring comments via email.

Here’s the relevant bit from an earlier Projo article:

In an e-mail before the hearing, freshman Sen. Nicholas D. Kettle urged Tea Party supporters to question homeless advocates and “fill up the room before the homeless folks! Help me ask why this homeless person has better clothes than I,” he said.

Kettle promised to ask tough questions and called Tassoni’s hearings a “dog-and-pony show.”

But during the hearing, Kettle apologized for the message, after homeless advocate John Joyce read it aloud and asked why Kettle hated the homeless and the poor.

Kettle said he didn’t hate the homeless, but that he sent the e-mail “out of frustration” and because he thought the hearing was one-sided.

“Don’t apologize to me,” said Joyce, who was once homeless. “Apologize to the homeless people of the state.”

So we have a young Senator making a freshman mistake right out of the box, but the forgiving among us will chalk it all up to a lack of worldly experience. Kettle did apologize after all. He said he does not hate the homeless, but was frustrated by the politics he was encountering.

But that apology rings hollow in light of more recent comments Kettle made. He now claims that one of the main lessons he learned had nothing to do with tolerance or compassion. Instead Kettle has learned the true art of politics. He has learned not to express his true views out loud, but to keep them to himself. He has decided that honestly expressing himself is dangerous.

“Watch what you put in writing,” he says now.

Going from “idealistic” Tea Party darling to disengenuous political hack in just one session has got to be some sort of record.


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