Refuse to Surrender Your Freedom

Published on December 18, 2004 By iamheather In Politics

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

By STEPHANIE STROM

he American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Comments (Page 1)

Danny Bassette

on Dec 18, 2004

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

iamheather

on Dec 18, 2004

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.

Danny Bassette

on Dec 18, 2004

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...

messybuu

on Dec 18, 2004

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

iamheather

on Dec 18, 2004

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.

Danny Bassette

on Dec 18, 2004

Ah, ok, that makes sense now, thanks

kingbee

on Dec 18, 2004

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

iamheather

on Dec 18, 2004

Thank you for that, kingbee. I didn't post everything on that page, just the sign up part.

whoman69

on Dec 18, 2004

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.

dabe

on Dec 18, 2004

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.

iamheather

on Dec 19, 2004

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.

hitparade

on Dec 21, 2004

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.

Independent1

on Dec 22, 2004

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?

drmiler

on Dec 22, 2004

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!

kingbee

on Dec 22, 2004

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?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!