“Atheists Want to Abort Baby Jesus,” Says Christian Who Doesn’t Understand the Law (or Abortions) December 14, 2016

“Atheists Want to Abort Baby Jesus,” Says Christian Who Doesn’t Understand the Law (or Abortions)

Linda Harvey, the right-wing Christian who makes Todd Starnes appear fair and balanced, says in her latest column that atheists in Ohio are “trying to legally abort the baby in the manger.”

Her phrasing doesn’t make any sense for a lot of reasons…

1) Abortions are legal. Are there atheists trying to perform illegal abortions?
2) You can’t abort babies. They’re already born.
3) Who knew moving Baby Jesus to private property was the equivalent of what Harvey would call murder?

In any case, what the hell is she even referring to?


In St. Bernard, Ohio, a village in greater Cincinnati, the nativity scene displayed in front of city hall is under attack by the spiteful, small-minded Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), the far-left Wisconsin group that spends its time and money attempting to dilate and extract the baby Jesus from the wombs of community after community.

Ignoring her attempt to extend a bad metaphor, a local city hall is promoting Christianity, which is illegal, and FFRF is calling them out on it. City officials say the Nativity scene is okay because they put Santa and some reindeer around it, thus making it a totally secular display, but it’s very clear from the picture above that Jesus is getting special treatment.

The city has a couple of options: They could move the display to private property, like outside a church, where Jesus can frolic around to His heart’s content. They could also allow non-Christian groups to put up their own displays in the same space.

Somehow, though, Harvey says Christians being treated just like everybody else amounts to the killing of Fetus Jesus.

She also can’t handle the existence of After School Satan clubs — or The Satanic Temple’s efforts to put up their own displays wherever there are public forums with Nativity scenes already present.

What school administrator would allow a Satanic after-school club? What school board? Idiotically, some officials are willing to open this wicked spiritual door to small children. The virulent anti-Christian bias of too many educators today does, one can only surmise, occasionally reach this extreme, with tolerance of such evil – or even sympathy for it.

God help us. God help our precious children.

Many of these atheists/neopagans believe the demonic realm can be controlled, as long as they are on the same, Christ-defying side.

“What school administrator would allow a Satanic after-school club? What school board?” All of them who respect the law. The Satanic clubs are only being offered in districts where similar Christian clubs already exist. And the purpose of the Satanic clubs, which Harvey clearly doesn’t know or care to look up, is to get children to think for themselves and ask questions about the world around them. (It has nothing to do with getting them to hate Christians or believe in Satan.)

As for the “demonic realm” comment, I have no idea what Harvey’s talking about. Neither does she, if she thinks atheists or Satanists believe in actual demons — or thinks that we are out to get Christians.

We’re not. We just want the government to enforce its own rules about when and where religion can be promoted.

Harvey also made this absurd comment about American Atheists’ latest billboard campaign:

But a billboard campaign is not cheap. If God doesn’t exist, why go to such trouble and expense?

1) Because people like Harvey exist. And atheists want to provide an alternative perspective. Groups like AA put up billboards for the same reason Harvey writes a column: To get people’s attention and encourage them to think a different way.

2) The billboards aren’t about disproving God’s existence. They urged people who already don’t believe in God to “skip church.” They told people who don’t really believe in that nonsense that it was okay to stop wasting their time.

That’s not a “potshot,” as Harvey calls it. That’s just a different opinion, something she’s unable to handle.

All the more reason to keep, um, aborting inanimate objects by asking government officials to please move them elsewhere as the law requires.

"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 !!