Refuse to Surrender Your Freedom

http://www.aclu.org/refusetosurrender/?orgid=EA111704A
from JoeUser Forums
It appears the ACLU is launching a protest against Bush on inauguration day. In fact, they even imply that President Bush is deliberately seeking to take away our freedoms.
 
Here is a recent campaign they are running on their website:

 
 
 
Help Us Get 100,000 People to Take the Pledge by Inauguration Day -- January 20th


Today our most fundamental freedoms are in jeopardy. Only a bold, spirited movement of people like you who refuse to surrender your freedoms can protect our civil liberties.

On January 20th, George Bush will pledge to uphold the Constitution. Our goal is to recruit 100,000 new ACLU supporters by that day to proclaim "I REFUSE TO SURRENDER MY FREEDOM" by taking this simple pledge:

"I pledge to join with over 400,000 ACLU members and supporters to help ensure that the President, his administration, and our leaders in Congress fulfill their duty to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.

By reaffirming my commitment to the American values of justice and liberty for all, I am enlisting in a powerful movement to defend our freedoms against assaults on our civil liberties."

Let's make it clear to those who seek to take away our freedoms that they are on the wrong side of the law... the wrong side of core American values... and the wrong side of history. Take the pledge now and stand strong in support of freedom.

 

Warning: Before you sign the petition, or donate money to this "worthy" cause, please read this:

 

A.C.L.U.'s Search for Data on Donors Stirs Privacy Fears
politics
23,357 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Keeping freedoms is good. And supporting groups that do this is also good. But the ACLU didn't state what freedoms they claim Bush will take away, seems too broad to me. I'm inclined to think it's merely an attempt to gain leverage. I read something recently where the ACLU went after the department of defense saying they couldn't interact with the boyscouts because they were a religious group. Seems to me like the ACLU is about taking away freedoms in the name of equality while claiming they are protecting those same freedoms.
In other words: Protecting freedom good, ACLU good in theory, bad in practice, that's my opinion on this subject.
Of course, we should also have the freedom to give up our freedoms, but only if we are then free to take them back
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Seems to me like the ACLU is about taking away freedoms in the name of equality while claiming they are protecting those same freedoms.

Jackpot! Bingo! One of the major assualts by them seems to be on religion, and thus I think their dislike and distaste for President Bush. My theory goes like this....when the ACLU is done, minorities will be the majority, majorities will become the new suppressed minorities, and the ACLU becomes the American Christian Liberites Union.

ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jackpot! Bingo!

Woohoo, what do I win?
Is an interesting theory you have, but the last step doesn't make sense to me. Why would they change their name like that after in effect making christians the minority? The only way I can get that to make sense is if the ACLU just wants to fight the powers that be and could care less about anything else. Which seems like an odd desire for an organization...
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow. The ACLU has turned from a group trying to protect civil liberties to an anybody-but-Bush group. They must be proud.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Danny

Why would they change their name like that after in effect making christians the minority? The only way I can get that to make sense is if the ACLU just wants to fight the powers that be and could care less about anything else. Which seems like an odd desire for an organization...

I didn't mean that the ACLU would actually change their name, Danny. I was making a point that when the ACLU achieves their agenda, another group will form to defend the new minorities. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

messybuu

The ACLU has turned from a group trying to protect civil liberties to an anybody-but-Bush group. They must be proud.

I am sure they are. I think they have been an anybody-but-Bush group for some time, but just now decided to be courageous enough to outrightly voice their stance.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, ok, that makes sense now, thanks
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

But the ACLU didn't state what freedoms they claim Bush will take away

actually they do.  it's on the linked page but wasnt quoted:


• Preserve the separation of church and state
• Amend the Patriot Act to keep us safe and free
• Defend the right to dissent
• Safeguard a woman's right to choose
• Advocate for the full equality of LGBT people
• Protect privacy in all aspects of our lives

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank you for that, kingbee. I didn't post everything on that page, just the sign up part.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Its clear to me that an organization founded under a great principle has lost its course. They still have some worthy goals, seeking to ammend the Patriot Act to protect us without doing away with our basic rights of due process for example. They have begun a pattern of taking rights away from the majority by stating the rights of the minority are somehow more important.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
When I was on the board of Directors of our local ACLU, we used to go through donors lists to try and discern who donated when, how much, and would they likely donate again. We were always scrounging for money just to keep the office functioning, not to mention field the whole array of calls from people who needed legal advice. It never seemed dishonest or contrary to ACLU's charter, nor did we divulge donor lists to anyone else. I don't know what's happening now, but I imagine that since lists have become computerized and technologically sophisticated, it may appear to be sinister, when in fact it's not. For all I know, they are merely using a database program, like MS Access, and are running queries on their records. I guess that constitutes "data mining" for some people. It's not inherently malevolent. But, apparently the ACLU is now squabbling from within. I guess they are going to have to come to terms with technology and its implications.

As for the question of what rights Bush is trying to take away from Americans, I suggest you read the Patriot Act. It's horrendous, and there is no question that it will diminish rights. The Patriot Act is one of the aspects of this administration that I find so abhorrent. It's straight from the Nazi playbook, and will not serve to protect anyone. Even the term "Patriot Act" is disengenuous. It's a complete misnomer for a very unpatriotic and abysmal piece of legislation.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

They have begun a pattern of taking rights away from the majority by stating the rights of the minority are somehow more important.
Its clear to me that an organization founded under a great principle has lost its course

Wow, whoman69. I did not expect for you to acknowledge this. Thank you for your honesty.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will say this about the ACLU: When the state has turned the focus of its awesome power on (against) you, the poor, dangling helpless little individual doesn't stand a chance, so that even a bunch of commies like the ACLU are very much needed as a watchdog, and advocate to assist the individual when no one else will. This is something to think about my rightwing brothers. Of course, I vigorously disagree with them 99.999% of the time. But I do still appreciate their willingness to throw themselves in front of government's inherent "Big Brother" tendencies. As for the patriot act, I believe it’s important to put it into proper perspective. In essence, the enlarged police powers in the act are no different from those already available to law enforcement when policing the mafia. Liberals -- why should an FBI agent have less police power for monitoring terrorist at his immediate disposal, than he has when investigating let’s say, e.g., Big Joey Massina, the boss of the Bonnano crime family? If anyone has a gripe about police abuse, believe me it's Big Joey. If the ACLU is committed to protecting citizens from government overreaching, they should jump on board Big Joey’s defense bandwagon, as the FEDS, based on trumped up charges, are vigorously at work trying to execute him. In this connection, as well as in others, I do believe Ashcroft abused the spirit of the act if not its letter. Hence, the Justice Department must shift its priorities now that Ashcroft is gone, and get to the business of capturing and killing terrorists. Were the FEDS shrewd, they would reach out to Big Joey for help in the war on terrorism. The Canadian border, the docks and piers of Brooklyn, etc… all would be considerably safer from the evil doers were Big Joey’s crew on the job. In W.W. II, the federal government did just this when it reached out to Charlie Lucky Luciano, who was rotting away in Clinton State prison, for help against the fascist. This relationship is known as the Navy red files.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I read something recently where the ACLU went after the department of defense saying they couldn't interact with the boyscouts because they were a religious group.Seems to me like the ACLU is about taking away freedoms in the name of equality while claiming they are protecting those same freedoms.


Here's a quote from the ACLU of Illinois who took on the case:

"Previously, Department of Defense (DOD) units held charters to lead hundreds of Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs. Government employees who led those DOD-sponsored troops and packs were required to abide by two rules related to religion promulgated by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The first rule from the BSA necessitated that government employees exclude any youth from membership in the Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts simply because they do not believe in God. Additionally, the BSA obliges troop and pack leaders to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God.By holding charters to operate Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs, DOD employees acting in their official capacities administered a religious oath and practiced religious discrimination. The ACLU of Illinois alleged in this litigation that such direct government sponsorship of BSA units violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not want to express a belief in God.The settlement does not stop off-duty DOD employees, on their own time, from sponsoring BSA units. Also, BSA units not sponsored by DOD still will have access to military facilities made available to other non-governmental entities."

Exactly whose freedoms are they taking away? Would that be the freedom of a government agency to spend the publics tax dollars on a group that is discriminating against those who do not practice monotheist religions?




Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #13 By: Independent1 - 12/22/2004 4:09:31 AM
I read something recently where the ACLU went after the department of defense saying they couldn't interact with the boyscouts because they were a religious group.Seems to me like the ACLU is about taking away freedoms in the name of equality while claiming they are protecting those same freedoms.


Here's a quote from the ACLU of Illinois who took on the case:

"Previously, Department of Defense (DOD) units held charters to lead hundreds of Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs. Government employees who led those DOD-sponsored troops and packs were required to abide by two rules related to religion promulgated by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The first rule from the BSA necessitated that government employees exclude any youth from membership in the Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts simply because they do not believe in God. Additionally, the BSA obliges troop and pack leaders to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God.By holding charters to operate Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs, DOD employees acting in their official capacities administered a religious oath and practiced religious discrimination. The ACLU of Illinois alleged in this litigation that such direct government sponsorship of BSA units violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not want to express a belief in God.The settlement does not stop off-duty DOD employees, on their own time, from sponsoring BSA units. Also, BSA units not sponsored by DOD still will have access to military facilities made available to other non-governmental entities."

Exactly whose freedoms are they taking away? Would that be the freedom of a government agency to spend the publics tax dollars on a group that is discriminating against those who do not practice monotheist religions?


I hate to tell you this dude, but this posting is pure BS! The BSA do NOT discriminate based on religion! This posting is ACLU propaganda. And although God is mentioned in the BSA creed, you are NOT required to say that section if it goes against your beliefs!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

And although God is mentioned in the BSA creed, you are NOT required to say that section if it goes against your beliefs!


what other parts of the boyscout oath is one permitted to omit?   and if that's the case, why has there been so much moaning and weeping about this issue.  when did bsa issue that ruling? 

Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
the ACLU has become a radical left wing activist group. If I had the power that group would either be EXTREMLY reformed. Or the group would be destroyed.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #15 By: kingbee - 12/22/2004 7:59:59 AM
And although God is mentioned in the BSA creed, you are NOT required to say that section if it goes against your beliefs!



what other parts of the boyscout oath is one permitted to omit? and if that's the case, why has there been so much moaning and weeping about this issue. when did bsa issue that ruling?


As far as I know that happened a few years ago. The pissing and whining started when BSA would not let gays be scoutmasters. They're using this as a smoke screen.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #15 By: kingbee - 12/22/2004 7:59:59 AM
And although God is mentioned in the BSA creed, you are NOT required to say that section if it goes against your beliefs!



what other parts of the boyscout oath is one permitted to omit? and if that's the case, why has there been so much moaning and weeping about this issue. when did bsa issue that ruling?


And even if they did discriminate those who do not practice monotheist religions. How is that any different than those male oriented organizations that discriminate against women?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The pissing and whining started when BSA would not let gays be scoutmasters. They're using this as a smoke screen.

And even if they did discriminate those who do not practice monotheist religions. How is that any different than those male oriented organizations that discriminate against women


so your original comment about the case being bs is, as you now admit. bs?  it's no different than all-male groups that discriminate against women.  that's why they wouldn't be permitted support with tax-payer funds either.  glad we agree on that.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #19 By: kingbee - 12/22/2004 3:05:00 PM
The pissing and whining started when BSA would not let gays be scoutmasters. They're using this as a smoke screen.

And even if they did discriminate those who do not practice monotheist religions. How is that any different than those male oriented organizations that discriminate against women


so your original comment about the case being bs is, as you now admit. bs? it's no different than all-male groups that discriminate against women. that's why they wouldn't be permitted support with tax-payer funds either. glad we agree on that.


Okay show me in their charter *where* it says such a thing as stated and I'll apologize.



Link


Link


Link
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And even if they did discriminate those who do not practice monotheist religions. How is that any different than those male oriented organizations that discriminate against women"

It adds the government supporting specific religions issue. Without forcing the oath, the BSA doesn't discriminate amongst religions, so government support is hence fine since it is not support of one religion over any other.

As far as the oath issue it is not mandatory as of a ruling in 2003 but the BSA was going to appeal. The DOD case was started back in 1999 and the latest round of news was simply the first part of an ongoing out of court settlement. The DOD case is probably more of a strongarm than smokescreen.....to get the BSA to not appeal the oath issue and maybe also further the gay issue. They settled the first part so the BSA can use public lands and buildings, funding. There is still the Jamboree issue which is still in negotiation. Maybe they are using that with the gay issue?
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
I was not a boy scout for long but was a cub scout. The only portion of the program that deals with religion is one chapter which is the shortest chapter in the book. It asks that the scout goes to church, synagogue, temple once. There are no real penalties for skipping one chapter, you can still get to the next level with all the badges.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

The only portion of the program that deals with religion is one chapter


"I, (say your name), promise
to DO MY BEST
To do my DUTY to GOD
And my Country
To HELP other people, and
To OBEY the LAW of the Pack"

"On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."


 

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #23 By: kingbee - 12/23/2004 2:58:34 PM
The only portion of the program that deals with religion is one chapter



"I, (say your name), promise
to DO MY BEST
To do my DUTY to GOD
And my Country
To HELP other people, and
To OBEY the LAW of the Pack"

"On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."


To boil it all down, how is this a problem? The BSA recieves limited assistance from the gov in the form of charters. They could do without it. Their money comes from charters and most of that is private org & idividuals. The thing I think is a load of BS is they're trying to stop them from using public lands for their various get togethers. How are they any different from you or I if we/they wish to use "public" lands. Are they not part of the public?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
"To boil it all down, how is this a problem? The BSA recieves limited assistance from the gov in the form of charters. They could do without it."

The point is the ACLU is not ultimately trying to stop the scouts from having access to public lands. They are using the case to advance other issues. The case was mostly directed not at the use of public lands, but government employess heading troops while on government time, etc.