Christian Group Slams Patriot Act Extension

One nation under surveilanceI guess at least one religiously-driven group has decided that maybe the whole media-contrived War on Christmas might not be as important as the War on Liberty. The Christian Defense Coalition has issued a spot on press release slamming the Patriot Act renewal in Congress (via Hit & Run):

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, comments, “It is our hope that the Senate will block passage of the renewal of the Patriot Act and craft legislation that will more carefully protect and safeguard civil liberties and the First Amendment. Sadly with the passage of the Patriot Act, a climate and culture has been created in which ‘national security’ has become more important than protecting civil liberties. The result has been the First Amendment has become the ‘second victim’ of 9/11 and the rights of peaceful demonstrators trampled. For example, in the name of ‘national security’ I was arrested on a public sidewalk at the Salt Lake Olympics for holding a sign which said God bless America. And for the sake of ‘national security’, I was arrested on a Washington, D.C. public sidewalk for holding a sign of the Ten Commandments in front of St. Matthew’s Cathedral during the annual Red Mass.”

Preach on, brother.

6 Comments
  1. Not just the only group. Though they don’t put it in their title, http://www.thenewamerican.com/ is a conservative/christian magazine that reports extensively on the ever encroaching federal government (It’s a libertarian magazine in most regards, but the pro-life stance immediately puts them into the conservative category.

    They are definitely constitutionalists. Every issue contains a 3-4 page article on one of the founding fathers, or revolutionary war heros. They also have a “defending their right” section, which is 3-4 stories per issue about how people with guns either saved their own asses, or were able to save others from harm.

  2. One thing that I never understand is how can people consider themselves “constitutionalists” while at the same time they ignore the Constitution when it comes to religion and government.

    I guess they only look to the Constitution when it backs up their already held beliefs.

  3. Oh I agree. Any opposition to the PAT ACT is good. It’s just I’ve noticed that so many people who consider themselves “constitutionalists” completely disregard the Constitution in matters of religion in government.

    I was actually wondering if someone could explain this discrepancy to me.