It’s the atheist Gestapo, and they’re coming to your town!
If you have a cross in public, they are here to tear it down!
Look at Steubenville, Ohio—they removed a cross from view,
Which was just the sort of horror that the Nazis used to do—
They defend the first amendment, through the power of the court;
Just another Nazi tactic, I am saddened to report.
It’s so typical of bullies that they have to get their way
By denying the majority the right to have a say.
The atheist Gestapo trample Christian rights with pride…
And the damnedest thing about it is… the law is on their side.
I’m on a bunch of spam mailing lists that, were it not for amusing stories like this, I would unsubscribe from in a heartbeat. My title today is the same as theirs, word for word, just in case their usual audience wants to search for it some day.
It is becoming a familiar refrain: the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has utilized its vast amount of time and resources to force a community—in this case, Steubenville, Ohio—to alter its new logo due to the fact that a cross was prominently displayed as a part of it. The horror! Atheists nationwide can rest easy knowing that little old Steubenville is once again open to all citizens, not only the Christian ones.
Of course, the FFRF does not go looking for these cases; cases are brought to them. As for resources, I have no way of knowing, but I’d love to see a comparison between the FFRF’s annual budget and the annual tithing from the Steubenville churches.
The FFRF has been on a tear, sanitizing everything they can find of Christian symbols. In the case of Steubenville, the offending cross was attached to Franciscan University’s Christ the King Chapel, apparently a Steubenville landmark. It is quite shocking indeed to think that a Christian chapel would have the audacity to display a Christian symbol on its roof.
Did you catch it? That was the first false framing of the issue. The FFRF have no problem with the cross on the church. What they object to is that cross being featured on the city’s logo. The cross on the church is protected religious expression. The cross on the logo is prohibited by the establishment clause. But “Political Outcast” (hee, hee, Christianity really is a death knell for any politician, isn’t it?) takes that lie and runs with it:
So now that the “city’s imprimatur” has been removed from the logo, what do we do about the real cross in the real city? It is still there. If the cross being on the logo is a symbol of solidarity with the church, what message does allowing the actual church to display its cross proudly on its roof send to unsuspecting citizens? If the cross on the logo shows approval, then certainly the wooden cross on the church itself shows it as well. How is removing one and not the other any more honest or less of a “theocracy”? The stupidity is limitless.
The stupidity is, indeed, limitless. Allowing the church to display the cross, and prohibiting the logo from displaying it, are both completely consistent with the first amendment. The FFRF know this. Political Outcast do not.
When it comes to a conflict between privilege and constitution, the rule of law is important. Because we cannot trust patriots like “Political Outcast” to see that the first amendment only protects them when it protects all of us.