The Governor’s Brief Walk on the Tightrope of “Tolerance”

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Perhaps it’s misplaced to take too seriously Democrat Governor Gina Raimondo’s statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling, today, acknowledging the authority of the President of the United States to set immigration policy within the boundaries of the Constitution and federal law.  Still, I think something telling in this paragraph is worth brief consideration:

“Rhode Island was founded on the idea that freedom of worship is an inherent human right. I’m disappointed that the Supreme Court sided in favor of President Trump’s immoral and unnecessary Muslim ban. Our state has always been strengthened by the contribution of immigrants. It’s now more important than ever that we show the world that there’s a place for everyone in Rhode Island. No matter your race, where you’re from, your immigration status or who you love-you are welcome here.”

First observe the illogic:  The statement begins by referring to “freedom of worship,” which has nothing to do with this case.  The Trump administration is not seeking immigration restrictions because the immigrants will come here to worship.  It is not seeking to screen travelers based on their religion, rather than the countries from which they’re traveling, or to prevent worship once they’re here, but rather to prevent terrorism.

Now fast-forward to the end.  Raimondo notes that “there’s a place for everyone in Rhode Island,” elaborating that the categories applying to that assertion are race, country of origin, the legality of one’s presence in the country, and sexual orientation.  Note what’s missing.

Yes, yes, I’m tempted to quip that Raimondo — who uses her government office to discriminate against school boys in an official annual contest — doesn’t mention biological sex, perhaps because men aren’t necessarily welcome.  But more to the point, see how she’s dropped that “freedom to worship” thing?

Of course, I sympathize with the challenge that she faced in writing this statement.  She could have reinforced the “freedom of worship” point by welcoming people “no matter what God or gods they follow, or if they don’t believe in God at all,” but that would have been clunky.  She could have welcomed people “no matter what you beliefs,” but what about people who believe in outrageous things like the Second Amendment and the traditional definition of marriage, let alone the humanity of children prior to birth?



  • Mario

    “The Trump administration is not seeking immigration restrictions because
    the immigrants will come here to worship. It is not seeking to screen
    travelers based on their religion”

    Yeah, from where could people have gotten the idea that Mr. “we need a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” was trying to stop people from entering the United States because they were Muslim?

    • Justin Katz

      You’re missing the distinction between people of a particular religion and “freedom of worship.” I’m getting at a fine but important distinction, here.

      • Mario

        Oh, I see the distinction. She doesn’t separate people with particular attributes from the beliefs they hold, the same as anyone on the left. They conflate the two because, at their core, they believe that what people think is somehow determined biologically. Which is how you end up with the idea that people can “betray their race” by holding the wrong opinions. It’s also how white people and societies get full blame for their errors while others get explained away; since what is “white” is defined by a lack of a definable culture, only white people, in their eyes, are allowed agency.

        But it’s still a Muslim ban. That’s all it was ever meant to be. Just because they felt like they had to water it down to try to make it legal doesn’t magically wash away its origin or its intention. Even pretending it has something to do with terrorism is excessive deference. He also says that arresting Guatemalan refugees (and holding their children hostage) is about preventing terrorism. As long as people let him get away with it, he’ll keep going to the same well.

        • Justin Katz

          That’s not quite what I’m getting at. Rather, she wants to maintain the creds on “freedom to worship,” but that’s a very narrow freedom. On social conservative issues, progressives push the notion that ONLY the actual worship is free. A Christian can’t conduct his business according to his beliefs. Yet, she’ll equate a nation-based travel ban with “freedom to worship.” That’s why she doesn’t raise beliefs on her list of “welcomes.”

  • Rhett Hardwick

    ” I’m disappointed that the Supreme Court sided in favor of President Trump’s immoral and unnecessary Muslim ban.”

    One might consider how easy it us to get yourself on the “No Fly” list and how difficult it is to get off. Most are U.S. citizens, famously including several Congressmen. To paraphrase “Not every Rottweiler owner is a drug dealer, but every drug dealer is a Rottweiler owner”, not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist considers himself a Muslim. Home grown terrorists are another story all together.

  • Mike678

    Spot on. Gina and her ilk have to twist and spin to make a temporary ban on countries that have very lax security standards a “ban on Muslims and/or an imposition on worship. The rampant dishonesty is swallowed by mindless sheep and parroted as truth. Pathetic and sad at the same time.

    • Spinner

      Are you saying that the standards for the ban are based on having “very lax security standards:”? If so, show us the data. I want to make sure we are banning ALL them. You’ve got a long way to go before you can spin with the pros.

Quantcast