On Fox News, Huckabee bungles the Constitution and Pensacola Cross

[NeoGreen]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freethoughtnow/huckabee-bungles-constitution-pensacola-cross/

On Fox News, Huckabee bungles the Constitution and Pensacola Cross
June 21, 2017 by Andrew Seidel

By Andrew L. Seidel
Staff Attorney
Freedom From Religion Foundation

On Monday, June 19, FFRF won our case against a 34-foot Christian cross erected on government property in Pensacola, Fla., which we litigated with our friends at the American Humanist Association. The judge ruled that the cross has to come down. On Tuesday, Fox News, as fair and balanced as ever, interviewed us about the case. Excuse me, I meant to write that Fox News interviewed Mike Huckabee, a preacher, failed presidential candidate and former governor with no ties to the case whatsoever.

“Well, it’s absurd. Four people — FOUR PEOPLE — in Pensacola said that they had a problem with this. Tens of thousands of people have enjoyed the fact that it’s there.”

Oy vey. There are two problems here. First, it wasn’t only four people that “had a problem with” the giant Christian cross on government property, it was “We the people” — it was our Constitution. Sure, four brave local residents who were excluded by the cross were also willing to stand up for the Constitution, but that wouldn’t have been necessary if the government hadn’t breached its duty.

(snip)

“Tens of thousands of people have enjoyed the fact that it’s there. They’ve seen it. They haven’t been offended by it.” And, “If this cross in Pensacola is somehow offensive to the point that people can’t even go by there without being overwhelmed with religion . . .”

This is probably the most common calumny hurled at the secular movement. The goal is to sketch secularism as touchy, emotional, sensitive — as fringe. This shifts the conversation from the all-important Constitution to the feelings of “perpetually offended” snowflakes.

(snip)

“. . . the judge was in a box . . .”

Yes, in a way, he was. Judge Roger Vinson, who actually ran the organization that erected the cross, was not able to decide this case on his personal beliefs. He wanted to keep the cross up, writing in his opinion that the Founding Fathers “would have most likely found this lawsuit absurd. And if I were deciding this case on a blank slate, I would agree and grant the plaintiffs no relief. But, alas, that is not what we have here.”

(snip)

“. . . then tell me: When are we going to take all the crosses down at Arlington National Cemetery? . . . When will those come down? Is that not offensive?”

The frequently heard Arlington crosses claim is not a serious concern or even meant to argue the slippery slope, it’s meant to paint secularism as unpatriotic, which is odd since secularism seeks to uphold the First Amendment. The jab is an extension of the mistaken notion that to be American is to be Christian. The old canard about “no atheists in foxholes” furthers this prejudice as much as it suggests that fear pushes people into religion.

(snip)

In his penultimate flub, Huckabee took direct aim at FFRF and missed, “This is absurd, we are a nation that has freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

One does not exist without the other. Without the freedom to dissent, without the right to be free from all religion, freedom of religion is a mirage. And the best guarantee for freedom of religion is a government that is free from religion.

(snip)

“They just can’t stand the fact that there are some people who believe in God.”

This trope is meant to paint FFRF’s fight to uphold a hallowed constitutional principle — state-church separation — as the persecution of Christians. It’s hard to know whether Huckabee is deliberately misreading the lawsuit and decision, or if this is a product of a hypersensitive persecution complex. Either way, it’s wrong.