Slashdot Mirror

Only in the US.

The rest of the world had seen your ill-fated War on Drugs, your absurdly high prison population, your tendency to sentence men to death even though many of them are innocent, your habit of carrying out dangerous experiments on unsuspecting citizens , your habit of supporting dictatorships in other countries, ...

The US has not shone so brightly as it likes to believe for many years. That you could not see your current situation coming doesn't mean the rest of the world had intentionally blinded itself as well.

Interesting, but wrong. Perhaps someone forgot to tell the Federal Courts and the ACLU it is all constitutional. Several parts of the Patriot Act have been struck down now. The first challenge to make it through the court system that was successful and can be found here. There are several more challenges in the works and there have been at least two (counting the one I linked to) that have been successful. It takes a long time for these things to be fettered out. Just because the law was passed, doesn't make it right or constitutional, such as was the case in the Sedition Act of 1798. That made it illegal to even 'utter' a word that could be construed as dissident against the United states or it's representatives. Thankfully that too was later found as unconstitutional and repealed.

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I get the newsletters and summaries all the time. You'd be very very surprised to find out how often they defend a middle aged white catholic male who has received unconstitutional treatment. Won't see it on CNN unless it's a gay devil worshiping baby rapist, but hey ... you surely have figured that one out by now haven't you?

The ACLU is pretty much the last organization that defends actual CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as they were written and intended by the founding fathers. I consider them pretty much our last fighting chance.

You don't have to agree with everything they do, but they are, with one minor reservation, extremely consistent. I don't nessicalry like thier policy on immigration, or their policy on the right to bear arms, but if the ACLU are not taking case after case to the supreme court, then who is?

Your freedoms are literally preserved every time they win a case. Ask yourself this: When is the last time a new law actually gave you rights instead of only taking them away?

http://www.aclu.org/contribute/

I pain for a full membership becuase when they say "we have over 400,000 members" I feel like it's a vote. I'm voting and saying "hey I'm kinda pissed off at all my rights being taken away".

http://www.aclu.org/about/
"We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state."

That's pretty significant.

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I get the newsletters and summaries all the time. You'd be very very surprised to find out how often they defend a middle aged white catholic male who has received unconstitutional treatment. Won't see it on CNN unless it's a gay devil worshiping baby rapist, but hey ... you surely have figured that one out by now haven't you?

The ACLU is pretty much the last organization that defends actual CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as they were written and intended by the founding fathers. I consider them pretty much our last fighting chance.

You don't have to agree with everything they do, but they are, with one minor reservation, extremely consistent. I don't nessicalry like thier policy on immigration, or their policy on the right to bear arms, but if the ACLU are not taking case after case to the supreme court, then who is?

Your freedoms are literally preserved every time they win a case. Ask yourself this: When is the last time a new law actually gave you rights instead of only taking them away?

http://www.aclu.org/contribute/

I pain for a full membership becuase when they say "we have over 400,000 members" I feel like it's a vote. I'm voting and saying "hey I'm kinda pissed off at all my rights being taken away".

http://www.aclu.org/about/
"We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state."

That's pretty significant.

I don't fear terrorist because there aren't any. Terrorism would be against the Human Rights Act (1988). The use of explosives is also tightly regulated, so they won't be able to use explosives, if they intended to blow up something.

So what precisely keeps you from abusing the system, e.g. for blackmailing people?

Jefferson called the Bible a DUNG HEAP.

He rewrote the Bible ripping out every single supposed miracle and any claim of divinity for Jesus. He considered Jesus to be a "great philosopher", and admired him the same way one would admire Mahatma Ghandi.

He rejected any claim of divinely insipred scripture by any religion. He called the bible stories of miracles and divine inspiration "fabulous and false" (fabulous as in being a fable).

You are projecting your own religious fantacy if you think Jefferson would be a "Bible thumper".

Would he for a minute allow the banning of prayer in public school

Straw man! An argument distorted to the extent of being an outright LIE.

Prayer is NOT banned in public schools. I am aware of no one ever trying to ban prayer in public schools (Yeah yeah, I'm sure someone somewhere sometime wanted to do so, but no one of any consequence and certainly not in any of the recent school prayer court battles). In fact students have a constitutionally guaranteed right to pray.

If you can look beyond the lying right wing propaganda you've been reading you'll see that NONE of the court cases they are screaming over is about preventing students from praying in school. NONE of them. Students have a right to pray in school and NO ONE in these cases is arguing otherwise. What the court cases have been about is that school officials acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government cannot ABUSE THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT POWER to either promote or suppress student prayer.

Go ahead, proove me wrong. I defy you to find so much as a singe case that was NOT about school officials abusing their power to promote student prary. I defy you to find so much as a single case that actually targeted student prayer itself.

A principal abusing his govermental power to promote student prayer is just as unconstitutional as that principal abusing his power to prohibit students from praying in school. You have every right to object if I abuse my government teaching position to press my religious beliefs upon your children, and I have every right to object if you abuse your governent teaching position to press your religious beliefs upon my children.

The ACLU and other "dreaded left wing activists" supposedly trying to exterminate religion and supposedly attacking prayer is school actually SUPPORT the right to religious freedom. The ACLU website contains an invitation for students to contact the ACLU for assistance if any scool official interferes with their right to pray in school: "If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help." The ACLU fought and won a case forcing a school to include a student's Bible quote in the school yearbook. The ACLU jumped in to defend religious displays on government land - in defence of people preforming baptisms in a public park lake. If you look at cases of this sort you'll find that the objection is always to the use of government power for religion. Separation of Church and State restrictions upon the use of government power are the VERY MEANS of protecting our individual rights to religious freedom.

Now if we've gotten that Straw Man argument out of the way, lets get back to Jefferson's actual position on religion and government run schools. His position was to STRIP IT OUT OF GOVERNMENTAL SCHOOLS. He ripped it out every chance he got, and he was constantly BATTLING AGAINST every effort to introduce religion into government schools or into government itself. Here is a pretty good summary of Jeffersons religion-school activities.

Jefferson was constantly being attacked as being anti-religion, the exact same attacks we see coming from the right wing today. If you check the context of the most

Until then the FCC and FBI can piss up a rope.

Google may wish to Do No Evil, but that doesn't mean they can't be coerced.

I'd be a card-carrying member of the ACLU if they stuck to their core mission of defending the Bill of Rights. I agree with a lot of their positions, but don't want to sponsor political advocacy on welfare reform ("Rights of the Poor"), stifle legitimate discussion of gender differences (Women's Rights Project's letter to Summers), health care advocacy (subsidizong abortions for poor women http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/Reproductiv eRightslist.cfm?c=146). I'm opposed to their racial politics as well.
I think the ACLU is one of the better liberal-interest groups (from a classical liberal's (think libertarian) point of view), but it's hard to deny their political nature.

ACLU Intervenes on behalf of Christian Valedictorian.

The ACLU fought to stop a high school in Michigan from censoring religious yearbook entries made by students.

*GASP*

I don't believe it. You mean the ACLU actually defends Christians too?

If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.

This is a bullshit challenge. Constitutionality is defined to be what the Supreme Court says is constitutional.

However, we can certainly dredge up the Alien and Sedition Acts, though that example is dated. How about "free speech zones"?

How about this: http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=1 3699&c=86

That last example is sure to ruffle your feathers, you stupid republican hick. Just because America has been a place where your rights were pretty much respected, as long as you weren't Black or an Indian, doesn't mean we don't need to aggressively protect those rights. Republicans used to spew all kinds of small government bullshit until they managed to win some elections, now, like you, they are defending all sorts of violations of our freedom to better exercises the power they have gained.

You came out of the gate showing your slanted view of the world. First you claim the government never abridged anyones speech rights, then you try to turn the tables on acadamia, the rights favorate target.

If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.

What parallel universe do you live in where you think that the Federal Government has never violated the First Amendment?

Here is one example. And here is another.

Of course, if you include state governments, there are so many examples that to list any of them would not do justice to the rampant disdain our state legislatures and police have had for the First Amendment. To imply that it is limited to state universities is quite strange... but clearly partisan.

If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.

What parallel universe do you live in where you think that the Federal Government has never violated the First Amendment?

Here is one example. And here is another.

Of course, if you include state governments, there are so many examples that to list any of them would not do justice to the rampant disdain our state legislatures and police have had for the First Amendment. To imply that it is limited to state universities is quite strange... but clearly partisan.

By listening to the people it is happening to. Or do you think they'll disappear, never to be heard from again?

PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The ACLU's legal challenge argues that the amended law violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it does not impose adequate safeguards on the FBI's authority to force disclosure of sensitive and constitutionally protected information. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of the statute's gag provision, which prohibits anyone who receives an NSL from disclosing even the mere fact that the FBI has sought information. Because of the gag provision, the ACLU was forced to file the case under seal; it was three weeks before the ACLU could announce that it had challenged the law. The government continues to insist that the gag provision prohibits the ISP plaintiff from disclosing its name.

By listening to the people it is happening to. Or do you think they'll disappear, never to be heard from again?

PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The ACLU's legal challenge argues that the amended law violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it does not impose adequate safeguards on the FBI's authority to force disclosure of sensitive and constitutionally protected information. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of the statute's gag provision, which prohibits anyone who receives an NSL from disclosing even the mere fact that the FBI has sought information. Because of the gag provision, the ACLU was forced to file the case under seal; it was three weeks before the ACLU could announce that it had challenged the law. The government continues to insist that the gag provision prohibits the ISP plaintiff from disclosing its name.

Dear Congressman Sodrel:

I am appalled by your vote in favor of HR3199, "USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act". As I am sure you are aware, and as can be found from http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =17920&c=206 and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/m ain564189.shtml (as well as many other places), The USA PATRIOT Act has been misused several times. This sort of reactionary bill passing is a disgrace to our country, and should not be tolerated.

Respectfully,
[...]

Ah, you know what? I think we need more links:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5. A rebuttal for some sense of "objectivity", whatever that means.

Being fair and balanced and all, I thought I'd remind everyone of a few similar things that have been brought to you by the US government recently.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

Take a look at:
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c =130
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12263&c=206

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.

Take a look at:
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c =130
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12263&c=206

more info on utah lawsuit - this is not about the bill this slashdot article is about - but it raises some of the same issues.

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=18455&c =252

The Utah Progressive Network and Andrew McCullough, who joined today's lawsuit, have Web sites that are hosted on shared Internet addresses with unrelated sites, some of which contain material likely harmful to minors. They fear that because of the new law, their sites and their constitutionally protected speech will be blocked.

"To comply with the law, Internet service providers are authorized to block access to certain content, and this would almost unavoidably lead to the blocking, and thus the censorship, of innocent websites," said co-counsel John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Also troubling is the fact that the publishers of these sites may never realize they're being blocked."

The case, The King's English v. Shurtleff, challenges Utah Code 67-5-19, 76-10-1205 through 1206, and 76-10-1230 through 1233.

Clients in the lawsuit are The King's English, Inc.; Sam Weller's Zion Bookstore; Nathan Florence; W. Andrew McCullough; Computer Solutions International, Inc.; Mountain Wireless Utah, LLC; the Sexual Health Network, Inc.; Utah Progressive Network Education Fund, Inc.; the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah; the Association of American Publishers; the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund; the Freedom to Read Foundation; and the Publishers Marketing Association.

It's just a local ordinance. If you can afford a new heart, you can afford a plane ticket to a free country. Are there any?

Also - there are ways for high school parents and students to "opt out" of the recruiting campaign. If you're a high school student or parent of such a student, you might find these links helpful:

• Resource Center for Non-Violence
• Leave My Child Alone
• ACLU sues Albuquerque school for violating privacy provisions

If you haven't figured it out yet, every time you buy a product you are voting with your dollars.

The portions of the patriot act that include library searches and searches of your apartment without telling you for months expire this year.

If Bush wants them to be in effect longer than that, he needs to get the congress to pass something to that affect.
So he can veto this all he wants. He can't force the congress to extend them either.

See
this.

Err, care to back that up?

Libraries that have been ordered to turn over information are *not allowed* to tell anyone about it. Not the suspect in question, not the media.

http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foia/foia3.html

Check point 3.

There is no way to independantly verify any of the released statistics... /tinfoil hat

Section 215 is dangerous, unnecessary, and violates the highest law of the land.

It's not that they decide Constitutional matters, it's how they work the Constitution to suit their needs, or on matters where the constitution is vague or not applicable they have free reign. In this instance I don't think the Constitution really dictates anything, so it just comes down to these justices decision.

Recent examples of judicial tyranny I can recall are the Terri Schiavo case. I thought it was odd that the all the courts ignored plea's by the parents for closer consideration of their daughter, while death row inmates get all the appeals they want. Seemed like a partisan issue and they acted accordingly. Courts in California and Mass. that decide that the state is going to allow gay marriage, obvious example of judicial tyranny. They write their own constitution instead of interpreting the constitution like they are supposed to. They have become a conduit for political agendas to get through. I bet you'll see activist judges start interfering with Iraqi combatants in Cuba or wherever. There are already lawyers hot on the trail, only a matter of time before the judges get in on the action in order to undermind war efforts. Just speculating.

Anyone who thinks the ACLU only stands up for liberal causes is a fucktard who's been reading too much propganda. The ACLU stands up when certain rights of anyone are trampled by the government. Specifically their 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights, and probably some others I have forgotten. (Yes, yes, not the 2nd. We know that, they're wrong, stop harping on it.)

And, yes, that even includes when the 1st amendment is trampled in the other direction. I found some here and here easily enough, and there have been a few others recently that I can't find.

The reason the ACLU is most often against the 'religious' side? Because, for some reason, various governments in this nation inexplicably and somewhat randomly decide to promote Christianity, often in unconstitional and stupid ways. Don't blame the ACLU for that.

Anyone who thinks the ACLU only stands up for liberal causes is a fucktard who's been reading too much propganda. The ACLU stands up when certain rights of anyone are trampled by the government. Specifically their 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights, and probably some others I have forgotten. (Yes, yes, not the 2nd. We know that, they're wrong, stop harping on it.)

And, yes, that even includes when the 1st amendment is trampled in the other direction. I found some here and here easily enough, and there have been a few others recently that I can't find.

The reason the ACLU is most often against the 'religious' side? Because, for some reason, various governments in this nation inexplicably and somewhat randomly decide to promote Christianity, often in unconstitional and stupid ways. Don't blame the ACLU for that.

How about here and here.

Or have anti-abortion statements and the right to display confederate flags suddenly become left-wing causes?

How about here and here.

Or have anti-abortion statements and the right to display confederate flags suddenly become left-wing causes?

They don't like the Second at all.
Really?
I suggest you read the ACLU's take on it.

It's not that they don't like it, it's that they read the whole thing, as opposed to just the second part of it like the NRA does. I.e. the ACLU wants to protect the actual amendment, not just the biased, edited fringe version of it.

Take a look here. Although they try to sound neutral on the issue, it's my opinion that taking a neutral stance on a basic freedom is qualitativly the same as denying it altoether.

Well actually ... These extended powers are based on existing provisions which have been applied to ISPs and which have been challenged in court and which the court has rejected as unlawful. The government is appealing this decision.

http://aclu.org/nsl is about this fight. Googling on "National Security Letter" "Indymeduia Server Seizure" and "Rackspace" should also be illuminating.

The ACLU too must pick its battles.

You missed the point. The ACLU is not merely inactive on the second amendment; they're actively hostile to it.

Please support your Local, State, and National ACLU

They need your small donation, and membership to fight for all of us. Even a small membership makes them all that more powerful a lobby and legal force.

http://www.aclu.org/

The American Civil Liberties Union - Who else is fighting for your civil rights, day in, day out, in America?

We were told this massive bureacracy was necessary to fight terrorism. We gave them lots of money and damn near everyuthing that had been on the law enforcement communities wish list since Oklahoma city, and now, after the fool's trade-off of protections of liberty for security of terrorism, they are using those tools and that money and their authority for issues that fall decidedly out of the realm of war on terror. Just like all those whacky bastards at the ACLU said. Just like all the the crazy Big L libertarians said they would.

They don't seem so whacky and crazy anymore, do they?
-John Cole

> You forgot about the references to Bush in the Darth Vader
> dialog.

The dialog is superficial. Calls for dramatic absolutes are common when dictators are trying to gain power, as well as anyone with extreme viewpoints. It helps them manage the cognitive dissonance.

Actually all the Star Wars movies are describing, among other things, how Democracy can fall to fascism.

In summary, Palpatine starts a fake war[1] (where he controlled both sides[2]) in order to get elected and stay in office[3] by appealing to people's fear and rallying nationalism [4]. He convinces the Senate to vote Emergency Powers to him [5] in order to consolidate more power under himself. He finally declares the end of the Republic [6] in order to bring "peace" to the galaxy.

The movies are not intended to directly catalog Bush or his policies. The original plot was written in the 1970s, and it was inspired by a number of events in history, including Hitler's rise to power and the Vietnam War. The way we humans move from democracy to fascism happens in roughly the same way each time.

It just so happens that it can be argued that Bush has been following the same pattern as any drive towards fascism. Thus, any parallels to the current state of the U.S. is purely coincidental.

-----

[1] Whoops! No weapons of mass destruction found. Our bad.

[2] Didn't we used to fund and support Saddam Hussein?

[3] Tom Ridge finally admits that the Department of Homeland Security twice questionably raised the terror alert status in order to prop up Bush's poll ratings during the election.

[4] Freedom fries, anyone?

[5] Secret sneak and peek searches via the PATRIOT Act, anyone?

[6] "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier," Bush said, pausing and then joking, "just so long as I'm the dictator."

You're either a cretinous Fox News slave or you're knowingly mendacious. Either way, fuck you

What did I do to get this kind of language??? From ACLU's own website: The American Civil Liberties Union today told a House subcommittee that airline passenger profiling would be a dangerously ineffective, invasive and potentially discriminatory practice

The grandparent post was about a 2 year old getting searched in the name of being fair to everyone and I pointed out that it would be discriminatory and the ACLU would be all over them if they picked only on suspicious characters. Are you seriously telling me that the ACLU would be in favor of not screening small children but only suspicious characters??? How do you reconcile your claim with their own news release say that profiling better not be used because it might discriminate??? It's all very fine if you want to support searching small children in the name of being fair, but don't blast me if I agree with the grandparent that it's silly to do so.

Many try to counter that freedom of speech only applies to speaking about the government.

Whereas in the US, free speech no longer applies when you are speaking about the government -- unless you happen to agree with Bush...

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID =111986&SecID=2
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=1 3699&c=86

Some links here and here.

I respectfully disagree with your assertions based on the following hearing in which the ACLU urged lawmakers to bring "Common Sense" back to the patriot act, saying that "Congress must cut through the secrecy. The Patriot Act went too far, too fast, and must be amended to protect freedom."

Also, you must consider that in a political climate that is completely dominated by the right, the ACLU will be opposing The Right. After all, they are making the laws that we need protection from.

The PATRIOT Act is a substantial assault on our rights and privacy. There was a recent vote in Congress on the REAL ID Act, which will also jeopardize our freedom. I found more information about what we can do since the legislation has already passed -- check it out at: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?JServSession Idr003=1wdoyj3382.app24a&pagename=homepage&id=195& page=UserAction

Correct. There is only one page on the ACLU's site that addresses the subject. It is always buried in an archive or footnoted in an FAQ, rather than linked from the "Issues" list on the main page.

For the record, the page is currently here. If history is any guide, this is subject to change without notice as soon as they notice people linking to it and turning down the free Kool-Aid.

There are at least three unconscionable problems with their position on gun control and the Second Amendment in general:

1) It's almost completely undisclosed. Many people join the ACLU under the misapprehension that they defend all of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers of the US thought the subject was important enough to place it second in the Bill of Rights; the least the ACLU can do is mention it on their main page somewhere along with the 20 or so other issues they're concerned with.

2) It cites a (ridiculously-flawed, regardless of your position on gun control) Supreme Court decision as indisputable canon. Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights are rights reserved to the government, and nowhere else in the ACLU's history do they give as much credence to a court ruling that suggests otherwise.

3) It's lame. If self-defense isn't a basic civil right, what the hell is?

Contribute to the ACLU

Anyway, how can Real-ID be "controversial"? Nobody but slashdot readers and "bloggers" even know it exists.

Sure, I'm probably going to be flamed a whole bunch for this, but ever since the national ID card issue developed in the U.S., I've been left wondering what the big deal about this is. States can pretty much get the same info off of you from a basic driver's license, the project is under development in the UK (apparently the project will create lots of IT jobs over there - I know jobs vs. limited freedom isn't much of an argument, but it's not a bad thing is it?), and until I see some solid evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to believe it will help reduce, at the very least, illegal immigration. I can see a cop walking down the street asking people for their national ID card (which, on an aside, I prey will at least be difficult to counterfeit), and at least I wouldn't complain too much. The ACLU provides five reasons why the system would be a bad idea here, of which only reason #1 seems to make sense. I would love to hear opposing views on this, since, even though the idea doesn't seem too bad to me, I'm still on the fence. Flame away.

why do non-religious people claim that Christians are forcing their beliefs on people when they are doing nothing but worshiping in public or sharing their beliefs?

That accusation gets tossed around a lot, but as far as I can tell it is either a missunderstanding or it is a deliberate confusion of words for inflamatory propaganda purposes.

The problem there is removing the word government and improperly filling in te word "public". Religion in public and by the public is perfectly fine. Religion by the government is not. Perhaps it is an honest mistake made out of ignorance and confucion, or perhaps it is a deliberate attempt to mislead and incite their base, but the fact is that all of these alledged "attacks on religion in public life" are no such thing. When actually reviewedm every such case I've seen in the news has actually targeted the use - and abuse - of government power.

I am not aware of any signifigant "non-religious" group with any signifigant objection to worshiping in public.

For example the ACLU - that great satan attacking Christianity and trying to abolish all religion from "public life" - fought and won a court battle for a student to include a Bible quote in their highschool year book. The ACLU also jumped in to sucessfully defend people preforming baptism in public - in a public park and on government land. The ACLU's website says students have a rigt to paray in school and says to contact the local ACLU for help if a school attempts to infringe that right.

Oh... and as for ther "sharing their beliefs" part, if someone comes knocking on my front door it is annoying and no better and no worse than any other door-to-door schmuck peddling their crap.

The problem only arises when people attempt to hijack the force of government to serve or favor or endorse their religious ends.

-

It's great to contribute to the EFF, but we shouldn't forget that civil liberties are a bigger issue, affecting aspects of life outside their limited sphere of interest.