Posted on

Are Non-Christians Not Welcome in Providence?

Peter Montequila, the owner of Finest Car Wash has stated a variety of reasons for having erected a cross on a publicly owned median strip on Pleasant Valley Parkway in Providence. According to one story the cross was built because the Fourth of July (or Memorial Day) was coming up. Montequila also claims he placed the religious symbol there to demonstrate solidarity with those who want the war memorial topped with a cross in Woonsocket to stay on public land. On the other hand, perhaps Montequila feels entitled to act as he did, having maintained the median by mowing the lawn, installing a sprinkler system, and planting flowers as part of what appears to be a city sponsored adopt-a-spot program. Still another reason for the cross, according to the owner, is that he seeks to honor veterans.

Of course, it’s not possible to honor all veterans by erecting a religious symbol particular to only some of them. How could a Christian cross possibly honor a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist veteran? Let’s be honest here: Peter Montequila only wants to honor Christian veterans with this cross, and more particularly, he only seeks to honor the tiny subset of Christian veterans who agree with him about the irrelevance of the First Amendment and the Constitution of the United States.

Read this quote from Montequila on 630WPRO:

an answer to atheist, and I’ll be quite honest with you I don’t really want them for my customers, let them go to an atheist car wash or an atheist gas station, we want customers that feel the way we do. [emphasis added]

What if you don’t feel the way Montequila does?

If it really offends them, you know what? Don’t drive down the street, or move someplace else or get out of the state, that’s how I feel.

The use of religious symbols to differentiate between us and them, those in our group and those outside our group, is a very natural human urge. When these symbols are used in a way that respects diversity of opinion and the rights of all citizens, then the lively experiment that is Rhode Island pays huge dividends in freedom of conscience and safety for minority opinions. But when these symbols are used to mark the territory of a putative majority interested in marginalizing those with differing opinions, the effect is to bully at best, and to terrorize at worst.

A cross has long been the symbol of hope and devotion to millions of people throughout history and throughout the world, but it has also been used as a symbol of persecution and conquest. Like the use of any symbol or word, the exact meaning of the cross depends on its context. For instance, compare a cross placed in the Basilica of Rome as opposed to one burning on the front lawn of a black family in the 1930’s.

The cross in Providence is a poor attempt at honoring veterans, as it only honors Christian veterans. It is a poor attempt at promoting Christianity because Montequila is only interested in promoting a particular brand of Christianity, one that seeks to blend church and state despite our Constitutional protections against such mixing. There are many kinds of Christianity, and many who identify themselves as Christian believe that a cross has no place on public land.

But the cross on the Pleasant Valley Parkway median in Providence is very good at promoting one message. And that message is this:

If you don’t believe in our particular kind of God, we don’t want you in Providence.

The fact that Mayor Angel Taveras has decided not to ask for the removal of the cross seems to indicate tacit governmental support for this message, much to the disappointment of those who take church/state separation seriously.

Unfortunately for Peter Montequila, non-Christians, including atheists and humanists, are not going anywhere. Instead, we’ll be sticking around and insisting that the government stay neutral in matters of religion by not allowing public land to be co-opted by those with a theocratic, anti-American agenda. Being a minority, our point of view won’t always be popular, but it will always be necessary. There isn’t, after all, one religious point of view today represented among the population of Rhode Island that wasn’t once held by a minority itself.

Posted on

A Cross on Public Land; This Time in Providence


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 Rhode Island, there’s a cross on public land. It’s not the one in Woonsocket, it’s the one in Providence, on a city owned median strip located at about 14 Pleasant Valley Parkway near the Coca-Cola plant.

The Humanists of Rhode Island sent a letter to Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, asking that the cross be removed, as the presence of a cross on public property violates the First Amendment. Certainly there is no secular purpose for this cross, as is argued in the case of the cross in Woonsocket. No veterans are being honored at this site, the cross exists purely to evangelize Christianity.

Here is the text of the letter sent to Angel Tavares:

Dear Mayor Taveras,

I am writing on behalf of our group, Humanists of Rhode Island, because we assume you are unaware about a cross on publicly owned land in Providence Rhode Island. The cross is located on what we believe to be a city owned median strip located at about 14 Pleasant Valley Parkway near the Coca-Cola plant. I am not of the impression that this cross was erected by anyone acting on the behalf of the City of Providence, or that the cross in any way serves as a marker for an accident victim. This seems to be the construction of a private citizen using public lands to create a permanent fixture for the purpose of proselytizing, and as such is in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which neatly and essentially separates church and state.

I have enclosed several pictures of the cross in question.

Because the United States Constitution requires government to treat all religious viewpoints equally, failure to remove the cross indicates that the City of Providence intends to administer this median as a limited public forum whereby all religiously themed groups will have equal space and access. Should the cross not be removed, Humanists of Rhode Island plans to erect an icon of similar size and visibility on the median, and will vigorously defend other religious groups who wish to do the same.

Naturally, the City will be responsible for ensuring a fair and equal distribution of land area so that no one religion dominates, and for investigating and prosecuting any instances of vandalism that may hinder the free speech and free exercise rights of unpopular religious groups.

However, this solution is not our preference.

We respectfully ask that this cross be removed from public land. We do so as a local group, without the involvement of the ACLU, or the Freedom from Religion Foundation, or any other national group because we feel that as Rhode Islanders that we can deal with this matter “in house” as it were. We do not see the need for making a gigantic case out of this issue. The cross in question was not erected years ago, is not a tribute to fallen soldiers, and is not sanctioned by the city. The removal of this cross should really be no big deal.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and we eagerly await your response,

Steve Ahlquist

President, Humanists of Rhode Island

Here are some additional photos of the cross in question:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Time to Move Woonsocket Cross to Private Land


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

The Supreme Court today denied an appeal in a case involving the Mount Soledad Cross in La Jolla, California, thereby effectively ruling the 29-foot tall cross on public property unconstitutional. (For a history of the Mt. Soledad cross, see Wikipedia. For a report on today’s ruling, see here.)

This ruling should give supporters of a similar cross in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, now the center of a swirling controversy  since the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to Mayor Leo Fontaine asking the cross be removed, pause. There are many similarities between the two crosses, and those similarities demonstrate without a doubt that the Woonsocket Cross is in fact in violation of the First Amendment.

Supporters of the cross in La Jolla had argued that the cross atop the memorial was only one element of the overall design, and that the display was a war memorial, which granted the monument a kind of secularity under the law. But in January 2011, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with that logic, saying that La Jolla was sending the message that the government was endorsing a specific religion, Christianity, in allowing the cross to be displayed on public property.

The Mt. Soledad cross was built in 1954, the cross in Woonsocket was constructed in 1952, as I pointed out back in May.  This dating places both crosses solidly in the anti-communist cold war religious boom of the 1950’s. Previous to this time period war memorials were almost never adorned with religious symbols. Look around, the cases in La Jolla and Woonsocket stand out because they are exceptions. Most war memorials are secular and patriotic, not religious. But the 1950’s became a heyday for ostentatious displays of Christianity, out of fear of “godless” communism, so in addition to dotting the land with Latin crosses and Ten Commandment displays we also saw the words “under God” awkwardly jammed into the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” scrawled on our currency.

The bill passed in Rhode Island by the General Assembly in the wee ours of the morning just before ending their last legislative session that sought to confer some sort of retroactive secularity on the Woonsocket Monument, if signed into law by Governor Chafee or allowed to stand without his signature, will not pass constitutional muster, and will only serve to muddy the issue. This poorly reasoned bill will end up being contested in and thrown out by the courts, costing our state more money in legal fees.

Mayor Fontaine and the Woonsocket City Council should be very much aware of the cross in La Jolla. They were briefed on it by by legal counsel on May 1, 2012 as can be seen and heard in this video ‪The Woonsocket Cross: Woonsocket City Council Special Meeting – May 1, 2012‬  at the 27 minutes 25 seconds point. Counsel for Woonsocket felt confident that the Supreme Court would overturn the Appeals Court ruling, which would strengthen Woonsocket’s case. Unfortunately the Supreme Court decided otherwise.

The City of Woonsocket could certainly decide to fight this case, and it would be well within their rights to exhaust every legal option in doing so, but the cost to the city both financially and emotionally could be quite damaging. It might be time for Woonsocket to consider a new strategy: Move the cross topped monument to private land, and re-dedicate Place Jolicoeur with a new, secular memorial to our cherished veterans.

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

Mandatory Ultrasound Bill Disses Women, Doctors


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

The Providence Journal published an identical Right to Life opinion piece that supporting Rep. Karen MacBeth’s mandatory ultrasound bill.  And so the Providence Journal gave RTL a freebie to further their radical right wing agenda.

Politicians like Rep. Karen MacBeth (D-Cumberland) who sponsored the mandatory ultrasound bill should not interfere in women’s personal medical decisions. Women do not turn to politicians for advice about medical decisions, including, birth control, mammograms or other cancer screenings, or pregnancy. Enough is enough.

When MacBeth’s bill was heard, Planned Parenthood Southern New England was joined by the RI Medical Society, and the RI American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposing the bill and all others that interfere in a provider’s personalized medical care. This bill is one of many that exist to take away the relationship and trust between a woman and her health care provider and replace it with biased counseling. This bill would require physicians to deliver scripted information about an ultrasound even if the patient has made it clear she is not receptive to it. Politicians who attempt to mandate the use of ultrasounds shift the intent of services from medical care to political agendas.

A woman should have accurate information about all of her options. Information should support a woman to make a decision for herself based on knowledge of a medical expert, and enable her to take care of her health and well-being. This bill and many others like it pushed by Right to Life do not support Rhode Island women’s health. It is one of thousands being pushed across the country in a political movement in advance of the next round of elections.

At Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island, we respect and trust women to make the right decisions for their families. Over ninety percent of what our health centers provide are preventative services including cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment and annual exams.  We urge the RI legislature to also focus on preventative health and family planning programs and not be distracted by such overt political maneuvers like Macbeth’s ultrasound mandate.

Women represent a majority of the voting age population and we do have the power to choose which candidates stand on our side and which candidates are simply using our healthcare as political bargaining chips. Women are watching, educating their friends, sharing, taking action, and we will be voting.

Paula Hodges is the RI Public Policy & Advocacy Director for Planned Parenthood Votes! RI, the Electoral and Advocacy Arm of Planned Parenthood Southern New England.  She may be reached at ppvotesri@ppsne.org. 

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

Cross Our Hearts: Rhode Island and Organized Religion


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

What does it mean to be a Christian? What does it mean to be an American? What does it mean to be a Rhode Islander?

Over the next few weeks I’m going to pen a series of reflections on the many hybrid religious and political battles our little state has faced over this passing year. It has been quite the year or so, hasn’t it? We’ve repeatedly generated national headlines. We’ve had holiday trees, prayer banners, marriage equality, veteran’s memorials, contraception controversy, and more. What’s a good Rhode Islander to do? What do we know about the intersection of politics and faith? What does our unique Rhode Island history tell us about religious freedom? Our rights to assembly? Our responsibilities? What are the alternatives to the current discourse?

I will write this series in as many parts as it takes to express these deep concerns. Hopefully, you’ll follow along, be you Christian, atheist, left or right. If you want to contribute directly within the post, start now! Email OmbudsRI@gmail.com with contributions… OR, of course, you could always wait and comment in the comments! Seeing how it was just the National Day of Prayer, I feel its apt to ask you folks to pray for me (or not, your call!)

Regards,

Ombuds

 

 

 

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

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

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.

Posted on

Commodification of Suffering: An Ethics of Charity


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
Drink to managed poverty

While shopping at Whole Foods last week (yeah, I do that often #smirking) I came across a new Whole Foods brand coffee. It was arranged in a pyramid styled display, and the store rep., having just completed the task of assembling it, stood nearby staring on with a look so proud it bordered on the supercilious.

I stepped closer to observe that the coffee was being shipped in from all around the world: Latin America, East Africa, India blends. Of course this is nothing new, we always bring in goods from places we’ve either colonized or helped facilitated the colonization of (think Vietnam). But what struck me most was what I read on the side of the container: “A hand up to over a million people. 30¢ from every can goes to alleviating poverty worldwide where Whole Foods Market sources products.”

Hmmm… “A hand up,” “alleviating poverty worldwide.” Really?

There are two immediate ways in which I might problematize the crisis in Western altruistic thought — and the capitalist work of Whole Foods in this endeavor:

First, it positions us, as Westerners who live in and with a “First World” perception, to imagine that essential poverty can be alleviated by 30¢. And what a bargain that is! In fact, it’s a 2 for 1 special, because not only can one purchase a can of fresh, organic, fairly traded coffee, but one can also purchase one’s redemption from having to think or be concerned about the constructed impoverished conditions of the people who laboriously tend this coffee on land they don’t own, or even control. One need not expend cognitive energy contemplating the worker’s labor conditions, which are likely politically influenced by social and economic mandates from one’s own First World government; just 30¢ and it all goes away.

Pardon me a moment while I run to my bookshelf, grab my bible and reread the parable of the Good Samaritan:
[Luke 10: 30-37]

29But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. [KJV]

 

The marketing formation of this coffee creates a way for western consumers to escape critiques of capitalism. Rather than fundamentally question this economic monolith, we choose, instead, to tolerate it; and Whole Foods makes it a benign affair. In many ways that which we call “neocolonialism” is merely the refitting of the old colonialism to a contemporary world and political cultural order. The labor of those othered is still exploited, but said exploitation is somehow in the very same moment alleviated — and that apparently with 30¢.

Real photographs of the women on the side of the can have simply become twenty-first century iconographs of acceptable indigence. Think “Aunt Jamima,” still clothed in her class-status-cueing raiment, still brandishing a smile of contentment, only now she is receiving a so-called fair wage.

Next, when we consider the example of Africa we know that it was a continental European colonial outpost. And we know that the economic corruption and deleterious identity politics were introduced by morally challenged European powers and are sustained by African hegemons. American media and educational structuring silence this past and present in such a way that it is held external to the lived experiences of both Third World laborers and First World consumers. Capitalist frameworks of knowledge exploitation, and our participation in its perpetuation, are obscured by an altruistic desire to purchase our 30¢ redemption from having to care any further about the way in which neocolonialism cashes in on, as Jesus would assert, our neighbor.

Though we think ourselves “Good Samaritans”, in fact we have become political actors, “Levites” and “priests,” at the register in Whole Foods. No coming closer out of compassionate concern, no oil and wine of healing or bandaging of wounds, no picking up from the road side and transporting to the inn, no financing of medical care to nurse back to health; nothing of a sorts. Just 30¢ to alleviate the poverty. Oh, the suffering worker will remain in poverty, no doubt! But it will be somewhat alleviated as the oppressive economic relationship of our’s and our neighbor’s world is authorized by this insidious transaction of misdirection. The irony of the issue at hand is not that we didn’t provide a charitable service, but that we got to walk away imagining that we did. And this is, as Slavoj Zizek would say, “the commodification of suffering,” where the aim is not to end the economic relationship hinged on disparate power, rather it is to maintain it by benevolently prolonging it as though one were giving alms.

“The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.” -Zizek

Posted on

My Pre-Existing Condition: The Price of Being Female

Will I get pregnant one day?  I don’t know for sure, but you know who thinks they do . . . health insurance companies?   I didn’t think it possible for an insurer to know whether I was going to get pregnant before I did, but remarkably, insurance companies seem to believe they know best.  And because of this future and hypothetical baby that I might have, insurance companies are allowed to charge me a higher premium than my male counterparts.

Rhode Island law currently permits insurance companies to charge higher premiums to women over males – a common industry accepted practice known as gender rating.  Insurance companies would argue that women are more expensive to cover due to their unique medical needs like mammograms, pap smears, and maternity costs.  Yet, women can’t choose to have breasts or ovaries, but driving recklessly, abusing alcohol, and eating unhealthily are all choices that can negatively affect health among both men and women.  Even so, women still pay higher premiums in the individual health insurance market (never mind the fact it’s been illegal in the group market for decades).

Still doesn’t make sense, right?  Soon, under President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, this discriminatory practice will be banned federally when most major components of the law go into effect.  (Phew!)  Yet… what about the next two years during which women of Rhode Island will continue to be charged higher rates?  I think Rhode Island can do better – and I’m not the only one.

I suppose if we want to talk about the cost-benefit analysis of covering women who may become pregnant, it would make sense to take steps to prevent unplanned pregnancy and reduce those so-called ancillary costs to insurance providers.  Following this logic, the HHS ruling late last month that requires all employers and health insurance plans provide birth control with no co-pays as a basic, preventative health measure really was one giant leap for woman kind to break the cycle of gender rating in insurance coverage.

Just last week, Brown University released a new public poll that found 56.8 percent of Rhode Islanders support birth control coverage with no co-pays.  Meanwhile, Rhode Islanders are almost evenly split on Mr. Obama’s recently issued requirement that church-related organizations such as colleges and hospitals to cover birth control in their employee insurance coverage.  The survey found 47.5 percent in favor of the policy and 47 opposed.  Might this public approval around contraception and empowering women to plan their parenthood, be a strong sway towards equality between genders on issues of health care?  One might hope.  Eliminating gender rating in health care coverage and providing birth control as preventative, basic health care seems like progress.

The tides are shifting – women’s health care under a bright, if not glaring, national spotlight, and as Rhode Islanders, we have a unique opportunity to show our support.  The reality, in terms of insurance premiums, is that each sex has their own unique set of health complications and risk factors – merely being female is not one of them.  Just like over 40 years ago when the insurance industry voluntarily abandoned the practice of using race as a rating factor, so too should it abandon gender as a means of determining insurance premiums.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island is behind the curve on this issue.  Nearly all of New England, with the exception of CT, has gender rating bans and regulations.  We have an opportunity to use the public spotlight that has been placed on women’s health to show that Rhode Island stands for equal rights among women and men.  It’s a no brainer.  Women in seven surrounding states are already protected from this practice; it’s time for the Ocean State to do the same.

If you want to get involved, and advocate for Rhode Island to erase gender rating right out of RI health insurance, I encourage you to come to the RI State House this Wednesday & Thursday “at the rise” to participate in the following hearings:

Tuesday February 28 at the Rise (around 4:30 pm) Hearing Room 203  – House Committee on Corporations hearing on House Bill 71751, to eliminate gender rating in health insurance, sponsored by Rep. Donna Walsh.

Wednesday February 29 at the Rise (around 4:30pm) Hearing Room 212 – Senate Committee on Health & Human Services hearing on Senate Bill 2208, to eliminate gender rating in health insurance, sponsored by Senator Sue Sosnowski.

 

Posted on

The Gospel Is Too Important to Put Down

I’m an atheist. Let’s put that aside right away. I’m an atheist for very personal reasons, and it’s a decision I arrived at after very careful thought and much emotional difficulty. And I understand that this distinction sets me apart from a large majority of my peers and indeed the rest of Americans. To say that life is difficult for an atheist is an understatement, we can see the proof of this today with Jessica Ahlquist in Rhode Island. And as we put a close to this chapter in our history I want to make a call for unity going forward.

Plenty of religious leaders have already made the call for civility from their congregations after the horrific response from people as a result of the court decision. No doubt these folks who put out such an outpouring of hate considered themselves good Christian people, but I hope the aftermath of that hatred made them question that. Christianity is based far more on the New Testament than the Old Testament, and as such is far less violent and more martyr-based. The God of the Old Testament is a violent, jealous God. The God of the New is a loving, forgiving God. In this sense, it might be good to ask, are those who are quick to lash out when they feel their beliefs are under attack followers of Elijah or followers of Jesus?

That said, I do take issue with many atheists. Take for example, Rick Perry’s “Strong” advertisement. It was awful. It still is awful. It never should have aired, and it sort of signaled the end of Rick Perry as a viable candidate for President (if he ever had been). But one of the things that struck me was the angle that some of the inevitable parodies chose to take. The worst “parody” was almost as bad as “Strong” itself. Go ahead and watch it. Personally, I find it unwatchable. In every way, it’s just as bad as what it mocks. It makes me ashamed.

The best parodies, in my opinion, tapped into the shame religious folks felt watching Perry proceed to make an ass out of Christianity (my personal favorite). The best put Perry out there as something most people aren’t like. They didn’t dwell on religion, and instead relied on an exaggeration of Perry’s own words to make a fool of him. There wasn’t a sense of superiority. Too many atheists I run across have a sense of superiority combined with a unwillingness to listen. I understand, religious issues force visceral reactions; it’s why the religious right relies on them heavily. And I understand that there are religious folks just as superior and unable to listen (“Bill, you’re such a good person, it’s a real shame you’re going to hell”). The main difference is that atheists aren’t backed by large community organizations like churches. They exist in the minority and on the fringe.

Despite the case of Cranston, Rhode Island is still one of the least religious states; 79% of Rhode Islanders/Connecticuters are absolutely or fairly certain in a God or Universal Spirit, according to Pew Research’s most recent poll on the subject (their sample size required them to combine Rhode Island and Connecticut, there’s a 5% margin of error). Anyone reading that sentence has pretty much understood the issue here; agnostics and atheists are in the minority, by a long way. As I said, being an atheist is no walk in the park. Much of American life is still organized around churches and religious centers.

The secular left cannot afford to be ignorant of this. It cannot pretend to live in a non-religious America. A secular society is a tolerant society, not an atheistic one. There is a well-established precedent that there is a wall of separation between church and state, and this is good. Religion gets corrupted by politics as it has been many times over. The first argument for a secular America should be the protection of religion. How many times in the past did the Vatican intervene in politics? How many died for the political ambitions of past Popes? Take a look at the Lord’s Resistance Army, and tell me this isn’t a corrupt version of Christianity.

But understanding that does not mean that religion must be exorcised from political talk. For much of America’s history, the Bible acted as the main form of literature of the majority of households. People learned to read from it, they learned how to write, its language continues to seep into American speech today. Three of the world’s major religions use parts of it. Even those who have never read the Bible know phrases from it, or at least bastardizations of those phrases; “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” “…the love of money is the root of all evil…” etc., etc. The King James Bible is more influential on the English language than Shakespeare. To be unable to utilize its very rich language is to be unable to speak to a huge audience. The study of the Bible is important for the secular left, if only to grasp the very real arguments Jesus makes against greed and corruption.

But beyond that, we must understand more about Christianity than many would perhaps like. One of the most interesting shifts in American thought is a shift in religious doctrine from postmillennialism to premillennialism. To put it briefly, millennialism (nowadays condemned by the Catholic Church) is the belief in a thousand-year reign of Christ prior to the Last Judgement that will be a paradise on Earth. Postmillennialism is the belief that this paradise will come before Christ’s second coming. Premillennialism is that it will come after Christ’s second coming; the famous idea of the “rapture” where the good are called to Heaven is a strain of premillennial doctrine.

The implications are vast. In the former, it is possible for humanity to build a good and just world and make it last. In the latter, humans are sinful and only the good will survive. Leftists must make the appeal to the former, for a nation that strives for a postmillennial world, where we can indeed build a good and decent society. Where we all need to pull together to create a perfect society, where we have it in our power to be so. The implications of the other idea are selfish and greed-based, they resist interaction, they resist society, they resist each other.

To succeed as a movement, there must be a willingness to engage all who would assist, no matter whether they believe in God or express strong doubts. We must recognize the good in each other, our commonalities, and learn to accept our differences. No one should want their beliefs unfairly foisted on another person, just as they would not want the beliefs of that person foisted on them. Hatred wins no one friends.

Posted on

Additional Thoughts on the Cranston Prayer Banner


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

After reading the comments regarding the prayer banner in Cranston, I would like to add a few comments.

To begin: any sentence that contains “the founding fathers believed/thought/said/wanted/intended/were, etc is necessarily wrong.

Yes. wrong.

The founding fathers were not a monolithic bunch. Exactly the opposite.  They were a group of men, many of whom had long years of experience in politics in some form. As such, as a group and for the most part, they understood the necessity of compromise. Not all of them; there were some doctrinaire ideologues, especially in the earlier days, but they were weeded out as time passed.

A great example of this is Sam Adams–whose father was a brewer, by the way. He played a major role in the early days of the protests that led up to the outbreak of fighting, but he did not have the political chops to play any role in congress during the war.

So, to say that the founding fathers were not Christians is wrong. This is the fallacy of composition, ascribing traits of component parts to the whole group. To say they were Christians is doubly wrong.

Many were devout Christians.  However, Thomas Jefferson is probably best described as a theist. He believed in a Higher Power–the Creator of the Declaration–but he did not believe Jesus was divine. In fact, he created his own edition of the New Testament. He retained what Jesus said, but cut out all references to miracles, including the Resurrection. Not to believe in Jesus’ resurrection means you are not, and cannot be, called a Christian. Belief in Jesus’ divinity is the sine qua non of being a Christian.

Ben Franklin would probably also best be described as a non-Christian theist.  George Washington and several others were Masons, which is nominally Christian, but with a number of beliefs that would not pass muster with either the Pope or the Southern Baptist Conference.

It is also important to recognize that, after the Revolution, a number of the several states had established an official religion.  However, this created problems for minority religions. For example, Virginia was officially Anglican (now Episcopalian). This meant that the Episcopal Church was subsidized by the state. For many, who belonged to minority sects such as Baptists, found this problematic for numerous reasons.

Note also, that, in the body of the constitution, Madison made no express mention of religion, one way or the other. That he chose not to is highly significant. He did not want the federal government–or state governments–to have an official religion. Hence the careful wording: Congress shall make no law. This ensures that, well, Congress shall make no law to establish any one religion.

At the time, this meant the various flavors of Christianity. The federal government was not to promote Catholicism over Episcopalianism. However, the wording is such that it is not restricted to various forms of Christianity. It can apply to establishing Christianity per se as a religion. Take this, along with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which sought to guarantee that the individual states could not deny the recently freed slaves their new rights as full citizens, and you come to the situation where we are.

Because of this amendment, no individual state can establish a religion, just as no state can deny a citizen the right to vote. This also means that it is unlawful for public tax money to be spent on religion, or for any organ of the state to promote a particular religion. Hence, the law is such that a public school cannot promote any religion. And it’s also important to recognize that atheism is a religious belief, even if it’s negative. So to promote theism over atheism is not permitted under the constitution.

I hope this is clear, and I apologize for the length.

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

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.

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.


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