Will Telcos Secretly Share Info With Government? → What Freedom?

I remember not long ago the controversy about rewriting the Bill of Rights. This administration is amazing. They just do things, strip us of our freedoms, our rights all under the guise of a Terrorist plot against the very soul of the United States. So now Mr. Ashcroft will make the Baby Bells, the ones we this past week were so concerned about the national sale of high speed access while right under our noses they I'm sure already have most of what they want already in place. What a sad day for all of us. This paranoid man who recently I saw singing "Let the Eagle Soar" and it embarrassed me to be an American with this idiot singing this song as the whole world see who the number 1 law enforcement agent is. He is a right wing conservative , born again, despot who is amazing if you agree with his agenda but I still am one of the few Americans I guess who still believe in my right to privacy (gone), innocent until proven guilty,(they're working on that one and God help you if you're a Muslim) . I know I'm going to get attacked here but I don't particularly like knowing the Attorney General of the United States has bible study meetings in the mornings before the work day begins and they are open to his staff. I have a problem with that. I believe in every Americans right to practice what ever religion they choose but do it at home. Not at the work place. Hey I don't like knowing that this man wants the "freedom" to be able to know what sites I have been visiting lately, who I've called lately, what interests I have. It's just wrong .

said by rit56:

---

I remember not long ago the controversy about rewriting the Bill of Rights.

---

Rewrite the Constitution? No, I don't remember hearing about it. How about supplying some more information with specific references where I can look into it? Thanks!

[text was edited by author 2002-03-02 18:14:36]

said by rit56:

---

I know I'm going to get attacked here but I don't particularly like knowing the Attorney General of the United States has bible study meetings in the mornings before the work day begins and they are open to his staff. I have a problem with that. I believe in every Americans right to practice what ever religion they choose but do it at home.

---

Why? Why shouldn't one have the right to practice one's religion wherever, whenever, and however they choose (within the bounds of other laws; for example a law against murder would be against human sacrifices)? The clause in Amendment I of The Constitution protects against establishment of an official religion, or particularly "the free exercise thereof." This means as long as attendance of, or participation in, this Bible study doesn't affect anything else, Ashcroft should be able to do anything he wants in that respect. If you want to restrict the exercise of his religion to his home, it seems to me you would be against the free exercise clause. What's next? One can only go to church on Sundays and alternate Thursdays, and only at ones that are more than 100 meters away from any government building? "Free" is "free," not "selectively free." If you don't want to study The Bible, don't go to his Bible study meetings, or his prayer breakfasts, or whatever else he might be planning, but PLEASE don't tell him he can't do it.

I would have to partially agree that some other freedoms are being curtailed in the name of "fighting terrorism." It seems some more of Amendment I may be trampled shortly in the name of "campaign finance reform." This administration seems a little over the top lately on governance.

"This administration seems a little over the top lately on governance."

Chandra, could you explain this please? It's a little vague, and I'm interested in what you mean.

Otherwise, that was a very good post. I wish we could get more like them on this board.

Actually, I meant that directly in relation to the two items discussed...doing some dubious things in the name of fighting terrorism, and restricting our ability to support political entities around election time. Perhaps it would have been a little more direct to say the administration's actions seem to be getting excessive. Sorry, I can't recall examples at the moment, but I will just say I found it kind of alarming when I followed a link that someone included in a post which had a quiz asking the reader to identify which things were said by John Ashcroft and which things were said by Sen. McCarthy during the big Communist inquisition of a few decades ago.

Believe me, I too lament that we don't get more posts like this, in the sense that English is an ALARMINGLY quickly dying art. See my signature block. I can't explain why it tweaks me so, but there are some posts on this site that I grow tired of trying to decode, so I just skip them. Too bad; some of those authors might have something significant to express.

I haven't heard anything about this either, but the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are two separate documents.

quote:

---

..attendance of, or participation in, this Bible study doesn't affect anything else, Ashcroft should be able to do anything he wants in that respect.

---

It's good to see in such cynical times such as these that you're willing to give Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this. I have some doubts myself, however.

I assume he has access to a church somewhere. Why does he need to have Bible "studies" in his office? There's got to be Jews and Muslims and maybe Hindis and certainly Christians of non-Pentecostal denominations working for him. I would imagine this would cause them a certain amount of discomfort, what with the Boss so clearly drawing a distinction between his employees who are Christians-who-believe-as-he-does and everyone else.

A truly reflective and conscientious employer would not subject his staff this, would he?

As far as I'm concerned, you're the only one doing the "subjecting." As for those who choose to see it as drawing distinctions, it's just that: their choice. They also choose to be in discomfort about it. What you don't state here is that these Hindis, Muslims, etc. are perfectly free to hold their own e.g. Koran (Quoran?) studies. And that's what it's all about: freedom. As far as I'm concerned, it's like any other office social activities...birthday parties, going away parties, company picnics, and so on. Other than the traditional "uptightedness" that religion injects (which is just traditional and hopefully can be reduced over time in favor of better tolerance), I personally don't see how this is particularly different.

One, its called separation of church and state as to why he (any anyone else) should not hold studies in his office, ignoring the fact that he has some very very very very very conservative beliefs.
and
two, being from mr. ashcroft's home state of MO and knowing his history, I have to say he is worst cabinet member of them all. He has taken the opportunity of the 9/11 attacks to seize more power for his office than we have seen since Bobby Kennedy. And not "good" power to protect us, he is just trying to get power of any type, like this example.

I'M not subjecting anyone to anything.

Do you work in the AG's office? How do you know others are "perfectly free" to hold their own studies? Is it a policy? Is it explicitly stated? Your don't have any idea yet you assert it is true.

Blaming the victim doesn't help your case. I don't think anyone "chooses" discomfort, especially in their workplace. Please stop before you suggest that they "choose" to work someplace else.

Maybe you've missed the news recently from India or Afghanistan or Israel or China. They aren't fighting and dying over birthday parties or company picnics. Your comparison of strongly held cultural beliefs to "social activities" is a simplistic generalization.

The central question remains unanswered: why does Ashcroft need to hold a Bible study in the office?

quote:

---

Why does he need to have Bible "studies" in his office? There's got to be Jews and Muslims and maybe Hindis and certainly Christians of non-Pentecostal denominations working for him.

---

And in fact the implication is that if you don't go along, you won't get along, and you won't get ahead.

Whenever the boss invites subordinates to do anything, be it during or after work hours, it creates an expectation. At my company it's Saturday work: you don't have to do it, but if you don't, then you won't get ahead. At other companies it might be participation in standards organizations, or an after-work stop at a pub, or what-have-you.

Government officials who bring a specific religion into their workplace are creating an expectation that employees are clearly pressured to buy into. It's not unconstitutional but it's surely something that the higher-level bosses (in this case, the president) should be paying attention to very closely.

I am sure you know this, but the Bill of Rights (and other amendments) are amendments to the Constitution.

As such, the Bill of Rights, is part of the Constitution, regardless if it is on a separate piece of paper.

chandra, for someone calling him/herself "just another Libertarian," you have made some truly astounding statements of ignorance, particularly with regard to the A.G. practicing his religious beliefs & practices in the Justice bldg. This is tantamount to forcing one's beliefs on one's employees since no one wants to risk "standing out" by not participating in what the boss is doing.

It is one thing to practice one's religious beliefs *outside* of one's office on one's own time, however it is quite another to do so in one's official capacity as the country's top law enforcement officer. But then I'm not surprised by this behavior. Kaiser Ashcroft has not made a secret of the fact that he does not believe in the separation of church & state.

Also, I am particularly shocked by your inability to cite examples of the current Thief-in-Chief's Admin "over the top" behavior with regard to 9.11 As "just another Libertarian," you should know this stuff, otherwise you are just another dunce with an internet connection.

How about the USA/Patriot Act just to get us started. I won't ask if you know the implications of this truly horrible piece of legislation, but rather, I'll ask whether you have even heard of it? If not, then click on the URL. Someone else in another thread posted the following link but it is applicable in this thread as well:
»www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/ ··· otes.asp

OR how about the almost 100% abnegation of the FOIA, a.k.a. Freedom of Information Act? Click here for more details:
»www.alternet.org/story.h ··· ID=11816
»www.alternet.org/story.h ··· ID=12169

chandra, as long as you call yourself "just another Libertarian," then PLEASE -at the very least- be able to speak intelligently about the topics you voice an opinion on in public forums, otherwise, you are just making the rest of us look ignorant and you're hurting the Libertarian party.

[text was edited by author 2002-03-08 20:43:52]

Instead of writing a bunch of individual responses, I'll try to condense and consolidate these into a single post with a few thoughts.

As for those who posted about Bush and Ashcroft having a bad agenda: Let's try and focus here a moment. I never said I agree with or condone all the things that John is doing. It seems to me some here are trying to dilute the debate by saying Bush is for this or Ashcroft is for that. That's not germane to what I was trying to debate. What I was attempting to focus on was holding Bible studies wherever and whenever John chooses. One poster (incorrectly) stated that the central question is if Ashcroft needs to hold Bible studies in his office. Although that's close, that's not the question at all, because of the word "need." The question should have "should be allowed to" substituted for "need." I'm debating freedom, not need.

Secondly, for those of you trying to make the point about the implication but not statement that attendance is required and not optional: that's entirely up to you. You want to think that way, go ahead and think that way. If that's what you have experienced in your workplace, I'm sorry that it happens to you. I haven't personally felt this, so perhaps I just can't relate to your experience, and my argument too theoretical to apply. But again, I stress that it's a person's choice to either sheepishly and begrudgingly go along with that, or either vocally or subtly reject it. Again, I stress the phrase "as long as it doesn't affect anything else," which if I'm reading these posts correctly, seems to have been glossed over. Clearly, if John says an unqualified be there at 0830, that's wrong. But if he says I'm going to do so and so, and if you'd like to come, we're convening at 0830, and our normal start time is 0900, that's another. There's one poster who it seemed to him/er that pressure was even brought to bear on some people to socialize after work at a pub. Again, this is choice: choice to do it, choice to feel that way, choice to think of it that way, choice not to do it. I'd rather have choice and freedom than a mandate. So far, I just don't see this as a mandate.

I guess one poster and I will just have to disagree on choice. This poster doesn't seem to think we have a choice in how to feel and how to think. Some people think one thing or feel one way until someone comes along, talks to them, and gives them a different perspective. Then that person has a choice to continue to feel that way or to choose to move in a different direction with a different attitude. It was also stated that we don't seem to have a choice of where to work either. Hmmm....OK. I don't agree. I didn't think we lived in a country where it was NOT our choice with whom we work.

I'm not going to pretend that I work there, or know anyone that works there in the AG's office. The poster (correctly) asserts I don't have any idea whether what I assert is true, yet I'm not seeing anything that asserts that this poster DOES work in the AG's office, or alternately, that what I assert is KNOWN to be false. AFAIK, we're BOTH theorizing.

As to "inability to cite examples"...Sorry, my memory is not perfect; I don't remember everything I've seen precisely, and in many cases, I just remember something about it, such as "this was good," "this was bad," "this was horrible," "this was novel," "this was funny," and so on. I only have so much time and energy in a day to lend to this sort of thing; it's not my job. Just like the vast majority of other U.S. citizens, I have my beliefs and opinions, and there are very likely at least a few if not many people who know more than I do, have the time and energy to devote to it, and might even be their job to do that all day. But until I can mind meld with them to instantly know what they do, I'm going to know what I know, feel how I feel, and have the opinions that I do. It doesn't mean they're not subject to change, it just means that's what they are now. And I don't particularly see how expression of all this is bad.

I thought the poster that made the remark about me being a bad Libertarian would also hopefully think that any party, any movement, or any ideal will have people that generally think some way, but will not always agree perfectly on everything in that party, and not always agree on some implementation (for lack of anything better to call it) surrounding some issue. Again, I have written that many of these recent measures are excessive, which seems to have been lost on this poster, since we're both stating what's happening in regard to many of Ashcroft's actions is bad. Do I really hurt the Libertarian party by having a dissenting opinion on the application of Amendment I? I find it ironic that one who espouses to be Libertarian would seek to diminish or maybe even suppress expression of an opinion. Again, injection of these OTHER Ashcroft actions into the debate seems to be veering/steering away from the initial debate, which as far as I knew, was the free exercise of religion clause of Amendment I.

BTW, I remain unconvinced (so far) that these Bible studies contravene Amendment I.

Said by mags2: "Chandra, as long as you call yourself "just another Libertarian," then PLEASE -at the very least- be able to speak intelligently about the topics you voice an opinion on in public forums, otherwise, you are just making the rest of us look ignorant and you're hurting the Libertarian party.

Don't worry mags, you don't need any one else's assistance in making you look stupid or rude.

It is too bad and somewhat discouraging that a person of your writing talent, education, intelligence, and social interests has to stoop to personally demeaning anyone who doesn't share your point of view.

Why don't you just attempt to stick to the merits and not demonstrate the concept of your way or the highway and that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron? You certainly posses the skill to do so if you wish. Something that can't be said for a lot of people who post in this forum.

[text was edited by author 2002-03-10 13:45:25]

said by DSL Reader:

---

Said by mags2: "Chandra, as long as you call yourself "just another Libertarian," then PLEASE -at the very least- be able to speak intelligently about the topics you voice an opinion on in public forums, otherwise, you are just making the rest of us look ignorant and you're hurting the Libertarian party.

Don't worry mags, you don't need any one else's assistance in making you look stupid or rude.

---

Really. How articulate you are. And so witty. I would talk about what an anonymous coward you are, but I digress. I am simply awed by your words and as such, am not worthy to reply with my mere ramblings O wise one. Do try not to choke on your bile, I wouldn't want to be deprived of your sagacity. Have a nice day.

[text was edited by author 2002-03-10 14:02:42]

Mags, see you really don't need anyone else's assistance. Thanks for proving and reinforcing my point by your eloquent cyber rage rant, huh, response.