Note to Freedom from Religion Foundation: Removing the Cross Is 'Un-American'

Trying to make sense of the buffoonery that is the daily behavior of the so-called "Freedom from Religion Foundation" is a monumental task.  Far beyond just departing from basic common sense, these radical fools are an embarrassment to any form of critical thinking, historical understanding, or intellectual curiosity.  They are anti-Christian zealots.  And that's it.

Take their recent intrusion into the state of Indiana, where they have located a 14-inch cross at the base of a carved monument meant to honor veterans.  Not surprisingly, this intrepid band of anti-God kooks are positioning to sue.

In his irrational comments on the subject, co-president of the FFRF, Dan Barker, called the presence of the cross in a state park "un-American."  There's one problem with that assessment: it's completely backwards.  Or at least it is if you recognize that George Washington is a far more reliable source on the meaning of Americanism than a disgruntled and whiny atheist who runs a sue-happy organization from his garage in Wisconsin.  Assuming that you do, here are three easy points from Washington's Farewell Address that prove how removing the cross is actually what is un-American:

In his Farewell Address, Washington states explicitly: "Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, [Christian] religion and morality are indispensible supports."

So point one: Christian morality is far more significant and important to the social and political happiness and prosperity of a people than anything else – tax cuts, small government, individual liberty, right to revolution, all of it.  Christian morality is the most important.  And why, you ask?

Washington goes on: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality will prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Point two is a simple explanation of point one.  The reason Christian religion in the public square is the most significant factor leading to social happiness is this: without it, a common morality will disappear.  And when that happens, immoral people will abuse their freedoms to hurt others.  And when that happens, government will be forced to grow (make more laws and exact more punishments) to protect people.  But when government grows, what is lost?  Freedom.  In other words, if you are a freedom-loving American, you will promote Christian morality in the public square, not chase it away.  

Which, by the way, is exactly what Washington said: "In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of men and citizens."

Got that?  Don't claim to be a patriot – don't claim to be patriotic or "American" – if you are working to remove those "great pillars" of Christian religion and morality from the public square.  

So when Dan and his crew of angry atheists are seeking to remove a symbol of Christian morality from public land, they are the ones being unpatriotic and un-American, not those who put it there.  That is, of course, only if you think George Washington is a more reliable source of wisdom than Dan Barker.

Trying to make sense of the buffoonery that is the daily behavior of the so-called "Freedom from Religion Foundation" is a monumental task.  Far beyond just departing from basic common sense, these radical fools are an embarrassment to any form of critical thinking, historical understanding, or intellectual curiosity.  They are anti-Christian zealots.  And that's it.

Take their recent intrusion into the state of Indiana, where they have located a 14-inch cross at the base of a carved monument meant to honor veterans.  Not surprisingly, this intrepid band of anti-God kooks are positioning to sue.

In his irrational comments on the subject, co-president of the FFRF, Dan Barker, called the presence of the cross in a state park "un-American."  There's one problem with that assessment: it's completely backwards.  Or at least it is if you recognize that George Washington is a far more reliable source on the meaning of Americanism than a disgruntled and whiny atheist who runs a sue-happy organization from his garage in Wisconsin.  Assuming that you do, here are three easy points from Washington's Farewell Address that prove how removing the cross is actually what is un-American:

In his Farewell Address, Washington states explicitly: "Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, [Christian] religion and morality are indispensible supports."

So point one: Christian morality is far more significant and important to the social and political happiness and prosperity of a people than anything else – tax cuts, small government, individual liberty, right to revolution, all of it.  Christian morality is the most important.  And why, you ask?

Washington goes on: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality will prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Point two is a simple explanation of point one.  The reason Christian religion in the public square is the most significant factor leading to social happiness is this: without it, a common morality will disappear.  And when that happens, immoral people will abuse their freedoms to hurt others.  And when that happens, government will be forced to grow (make more laws and exact more punishments) to protect people.  But when government grows, what is lost?  Freedom.  In other words, if you are a freedom-loving American, you will promote Christian morality in the public square, not chase it away.  

Which, by the way, is exactly what Washington said: "In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of men and citizens."

Got that?  Don't claim to be a patriot – don't claim to be patriotic or "American" – if you are working to remove those "great pillars" of Christian religion and morality from the public square.  

So when Dan and his crew of angry atheists are seeking to remove a symbol of Christian morality from public land, they are the ones being unpatriotic and un-American, not those who put it there.  That is, of course, only if you think George Washington is a more reliable source of wisdom than Dan Barker.