The Patriot Act revisited in 2003-2004 and what it means to your religious and civil freedoms....
(Sent to us from the ACLU)
APOSTLE1.COM'S EDITORIAL NOTE:
We were just a bit skeptical about posting this particular item because it has been our experience that the ACLU has more often than not, been proponents against anything "religious" and "religion" in general, even when a clergy person calls for their help as a member of the ACLU. They always refer to the local ACLU group in the city or town where one may be located. And, even then, the local ACLU group will do nothing to help when they find you are just a little man or little person, especially Clergy. We found, in our opinion, that the local chapters (for most of them) are nothing more than political fiefdoms who prefer handling cases that, like the larger or main headquarters, prefer handling high profile cases that infringe upon constitutional issues, but not those religious issues that truly ensure separation of Church from State or, better yet, State from Church and the clergyman.
It has been our experience that the ACLU is more about self-image, power and glory by going into and acting where their profile will be enlarged. The little guy, especial the "little" clergy person, is not wanted, it would appear, to be a 'client' of the ACLU, even if the clergyman is a true 'Red, White, and Blue' American citizen.
That is one of the reasons why we have removed our link to the ACLU that had been our former means of endorsing them. We no longer endorse them whatsoever! We had thought, at one time, through prior experiences with other clergymen, that the ACLU was a proponent of the U.S. Constitution, even when such laws exist(ed), but find they are more often used in a manner to infringe on a clergyman's right of belief that comes under scrutiny by law enforcement in such a way as to impinge upon the U.S. Constitutional guarantees. But, over a period of time, it would appear as we said above, that the ACLU has taken a course or path in these latter times in which the clergyperson, especially the little one, is not respected, appreciated or wanted as a client.
It is our opinion that the ACLU should concentrate on those so-called clergymen who are breast-beaters, bigots, etc. as exampled by those who seek election to the presidency such as the so-called Al Sharpton. For indeed, if the constitution and/or Bill of Rights require a separation of Church from state, so it is equally meant to be held as state from church. Yet, this Al Sharpton has shown his prejudice, hatred and bigotry against classes of people who have equal rights both in religion as well as in life (for right or wrong as they may advocate such). Yet the ACLU does not about presenting a clear-cut agenda in this area whatsoever unless and until the "church" fails or refuses to do something as a whole that would win them and their cronies, "brownie points" in the political spectrum. The example, "Al Sharpton" it is further opined, is no different than Jimmy Swaggert, Jim and Tammy-Faye Baker (of familiar infamy) and others like them. They are neither Christian in the truest sense of the term and meaning, but Anti-Christian and Anti-Catholic amongst other things their are "Anti" against, especially in their misrepresentation of what Scripture really says as a means to commit not only "Bible Abuse" but worse.
However, all that it may be. we do know that in some areas involving religion or the religious (clergymen, nuns, monks, etc.) where the profile may be right, the ACLU will dig in for a battle if they can make their image appear to be for the little guy, even though they are not anymore it would seem to appear. It is, after all, all about public image, power and glory or 'big bucks'.
So, on our continuing review of some of the ACLU's writings and work, we have found the following of importance because all of us are affected by what is said, even the clergyman, the nun and the monastic, the very Church herself for those of us who are true Christians in more than name only.
At the end of the following article are further links to other pages on the same or similar theme being discussed. For all of them, individually and collectively, have an importance on one's religiosity.
More than two years have passed since the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law. Considered in its totality, this legislation represents a perverse inversion of the principle on which America’s justice system is based: innocent until proven guilty.
As a result of two years of sustained public education efforts by the ACLU, people around the country and across the political spectrum are questioning the necessity of many of the most troubling provisions of the Patriot Act and heeding our call to take action to restore rights lost to this ill-conceived legislation.
However, far from repealing sections of the PATRIOT Act that many agree have gone too far too fast, the Bush administration is demanding even more powers. In the House of Representatives, legislation has already been introduced that would:
Allow the government to seize records and compel testimony in terrorism cases without prior review by a court or grand jury.
Allow the government to deny bail, without proving danger or flight risk, for a laundry list of federal crimes said to be terrorism-related.
Expand use of the death penalty for crimes of “domestic terrorism” as defined by the PATRIOT Act – a definition so broad that it could cover acts of civil disobedience by protest groups.
These proposals go far beyond what is necessary to fight terrorism and infringe on basic civil liberties.
But the ACLU’s call to reconsider and repair the PATRIOT Act is also being heard.
Legislation to repeal sections of the PATRIOT Act that authorize “sneak and peek” searches and allow the FBI to access secretly all private records of any American is awaiting action from the House of Representatives. In the Senate, a bipartisan bill was introduced late last year to protect First Amendment activities by restoring a sensible definition of “domestic terrorism” by providing greater judicial oversight of federal investigations involving highly private and sensitive data.
We are also encouraged by two recent federal court decisions – one rejecting the White House’s assertion that the President can unilaterally detain American citizens as “enemy combatants,” and another ruling that the non-citizen enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are entitled to habeas corpus reviews to determine the propriety of their detention. Both of these decisions affirm the basic American commitment to checks and balances on Executive Branch power.
The ACLU believes that most Americans think that it is a mistake to give unchecked surveillance, investigative and detention powers to any government official – elected or appointed, current or future. We are determined to turn that belief into effective grassroots action – an irresistible force for liberty that will overcome not just one ill-conceived law, but all threats to freedom.
Learn more about the USA PATRIOT Act.
Learn more about the ACLU’s continuing work against the unchecked government surveillance and the continuing attacks on civil liberties.
Cities in revolt over Patriot Act