Woman Responsible for Roadside Cross Controversy Now Fears for Her Own Safety March 12, 2014

Woman Responsible for Roadside Cross Controversy Now Fears for Her Own Safety

After a lot of discussion about a mother’s roadside cross in memory of her son, the threat of a lawsuit against her city that compelled her to finally take it down, and the multiple crosses put up in its place (which stain her son’s memory far more than atheists ever could), we’re finally hearing from the woman who initially requested that the cross be taken down.

The nurse and mother of three adopted children didn’t want her identity made public, but she spoke to a local news station about how she now fears for her life:

“She can grieve the way she wants, but she doesn’t own the streets of this city.”

“And I’m afraid that when people’s emotions take the best of them, they don’t always rationally behave, and I’m a target.”

“I know that people, when they believe in God, they believe that they’re right and they’re the only ones that are right.”

“We’re not doing this because we have anything against their religion. We just want everyone’s beliefs to be respected.”

“I’m a very caring person, and because I’m a non-theist, doesn’t make me something less than any other member of this community, and I hate to be isolated and singled out as being something like that.”

There’s no elaboration in the piece about whether Christians have actually threatened her or if it’s just something she fears because she’s seen the vitriolic comments online discussing this case, but the more you read about this story, the more you realize how little people understand about the Constitution and how blinded they are by their emotions. Even without a tangible threat, I’d be scared, too.

On a side note, reporter Tony Shin needs to be reprimanded for the way he reported this story. After explaining how the woman requested her identity remain hidden, he told viewers enough about her to give her identity away. (Seriously, it took me less than a minute to figure it out using his information.) Even the pseudonym he picked was a bad one. How could he be that irresponsible about this?

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!