Malkin must oppose religious liberty — and Christianity
January 04, 2014 11:30 PM | 841 views | 1 1 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Michelle Malkin (“Cruciphobia and the cross the Left can’t bear,” Monday’s MDJ) issues a thoroughly false statement that atheists “don’t stand for reason or religious liberty.” So it is interesting that in the same column she shows that she opposes reason, religious liberty, minority rights … and Christianity (or at least Christianity’s key symbol).

Malkin insists that Christians should be allowed the special privilege of having their most religious symbol as the only symbol to be in a public park honoring war dead, and that everyone else should have the “freedom” to acknowledge and appreciate Christianity. According to her, opposition to such an arrangement is anti-American, anti-Christian, and extremist. And, by the way, she fails Logic 101 by repeating the longstanding lie that the “Founding Fathers fought for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.” She claims that a majority vote can over-ride individual and minority rights — about as thoroughly un-American as one can get. For Malkin the only choice is to either venerate Christianity and Christian symbols or be considered “vengeful purveyors of Cruciphobia” or “haters.” So much for liberty.

Only by considering the cross as something other than a symbol of Christianity (Christians, are you all OK with this? Malkin seems to be) can the courts permit the ongoing pretense that no government is endorsing a religion in this case. Imagine that an Islamic or atheistic symbol were proposed for a mountaintop in a state park and perhaps the absurdity will become clear.

The Founding Fathers and the Constitution they approved certainly did not want governments to be engaged in eliminating religious organizations, activities, or symbols. Every community in America, and nearly every street corner, shows that no one is attempting any such destruction, as churches, temples, and mosques abound. But those same framers understood well that if governments have the power to erect huge crosses, then by the same principle governments can declare that your religious or irreligious beliefs are unacceptable. Freedom of religion must include the full freedom to accept or reject any or all religious beliefs. If freedom from religion is not a choice, then religious freedom is denied.

Ed Buckner


Treasurer and Former President

American Atheists
Comments-icon Post a Comment
January 05, 2014
Ed, you need to understand Malkin is promoting the bogus "war on religion" narrative popular with all right wing media types. The idea is to portray progressives as anti-Christian and anti-God.

What could be more unchristian than cutting food stamps or letting unemployment benefits expire at Christmastime? But Malkin won't talk about that.

Like the "Duck Dynasty" religious nonsense, it's really pathetic this is what many conservatives think passes for public discourse.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides