Have we abandoned Washington’s vision for America?

The summer before last we visited Providence, R.I., a colonial seaport and later resort made famous by the huge summer “cottages” built by the Vanderbilts.

The town is also home to the Touro Synagogue, the first Jewish house of worship in New England, predating the Revolution by some dozen years.

Simple and elegant, the building itself warrants a visit. But the synagogue’s true significance in U.S. history lies in a letter George Washington wrote to the congregation shortly after he was elected president.

In 1790, Washington traveled to Providence as part of a New England tour. Among the town leaders chosen for the honor of addressing the first president was the president of the synagogue, Moses Seixas.

Seixas offered the Jewish community’s wholehearted support of Washington and of the new democratic government that, he said, deemed “every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental Machine.”

A few days later Washington responded with a visionary statement that, while not as famous as the Gettysburg Address, bookends with Lincoln’s speech as an expression of American ideals.

“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights,” Washington wrote to the congregation.

“For, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

America wasn’t always so accepting of various religious faiths. In the 1600s, Colonial Massachusetts had hanged three men and one woman for the crime of being Quaker.

In the 1700s, Washington was saying people had to pass no test or requirement, religious or otherwise, to make the United States their home. They had only to act as “good citizens.”

No, the United States didn’t always live up to its ideals. But we’ve always had leaders of goodwill who inspired Americans to remember the principles on which our nation was founded.

Consider Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican now running for president, here speaking of the Syrian refugees:

“We have welcomed refugees - the tired, huddled masses - for centuries. That’s been the history of the United States,” Sen. Cruz reminded Americans of our great heritage.

“We should continue to do so,” Cruz added. “We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with the terrorists, but we can do that.”

Well, perhaps Cruz isn’t the best example. He said that way back in 2014. Running for president has brought him back to his senses and sharpened his pandering skills.

“It is nothing less than lunacy,” Cruz now says of accepting Syrian refugees, apparently scolding his formerly lunatic self.

Fellow Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, also spoke to the issue.

Appearing on Fox News, Rubio criticized President Obama and Hillary Clinton for taking “an incredibly extreme position.”

“You can’t let people in unless you can pass a background check. What’s so outrageous about that?” Rubio said.

Absolutely nothing.

The odd thing is that Rubio would have us believe we’re currently allowing people into the country without a background check.

The U.S. already has in place a 20-step process for screening Syrian refugees, - according to a New York Times story based on State Department and Homeland Security sources. It can take two years.

It includes - forgive the dreary details - a background check, and for some, second and third background checks; three fingerprint screenings using FBI and Homeland Security databases; cases reviewed at U.S. Immigration headquarters, with some cases referred for additional review; in-person interview with a Homeland Security officer; Homeland Security approval; screening for contagious diseases; a multi-agency security check before leaving for U.S.; and a final security check at U.S. airport.

Does sound that like we’re allowing Syrian refugees to pour into the country?

But, as with last year’s Ebola scare, hysteria has swept the country, much of it bluntly anti-Muslim.

Which is exactly what the terrorists in Paris hoped to achieve. Our hysteria will help them recruit more radicalized young men and women to their cause.

Delaware top elected officials - Gov. Jack Markell, Sen. Chris Coons and Sen. Tom Carper - mostly stood with the president, with only Rep. John Carney caving to what might be called our bipartisan Cowardice Caucus, though it’s mostly Republican.

We cannot assert with 100 percent certainty that a Syrian refugee will never attempt a terrorist attack. We also cannot assert that a home-grown American boy will never carry out a terrorist attack against church members gathered for Bible study and prayer.

This is what we do know. Of the 2,174 Syrian refugees who so far been allowed into this country, none have been arrested on terrorism. Of the 784,000 refugees from all nations taken in since 9/11, only three have been arrested on terrorism charges.

We now have presidential candidates comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs and calling for the closing of cafes patronized by Muslims and even a Muslim database. This follows earlier comments referring to Mexicans as rapists and criminals.

It seems likely that Washington envisioned something quite different when he described a country that “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”


Don Flood is a former newspaper editor living near Lewes. He can be reached at floodpolitics@gmail.com.