We can’t say whether God likes tattoos. We only know the law of the land protects them from censors.

Tattoos long have been a point of contention in the military, which continues to carefully regulate content and placement within confines of the law.

Older Americans reasonably expect a tattoo conflict to involve obscene imagery, placement on the neck or face, or a symbol of hate. They would be wrong.

The tattoo scandal of 2024 involves a cross, worn by Pete Hegseth — President-elect Donald Trump’s appointee to lead the Pentagon as secretary of defense. Critics all over social and legacy media are blasting Hegseth’s tattoo of the Jerusalem Cross, calling it a covert symbol of White supremacy.

Don’t believe it. The Jerusalem Cross is sacred to hundreds of millions of non-White believers from every region of the world and every possible genetic background. White supremacists are rare, even among misfits, while Jerusalem Cross tattoos are relatively common.

The tattoo should raise no alarm, but the controversy should. Regardless of anyone’s take on Hegseth’s nomination, rational Americans should believe his response to the outcry: It is “anti-Christian bigotry.”

This is only the latest in a litany of attacks on mere imagery or verbal expression of Christian beliefs in the military.

Anti-Christian bigots have gone after military officers for having Bibles on their desks. They have berated students at military academies for Christian symbols on dorm room doors. They have taken on Campus Crusade for Christ at the academies. They have demanded cancellation of Christian speakers, including renowned neurosurgeon Ben Carson. At all times, the free expression of Christianity is under assault in military institutions.

Everyone in the military takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

The first order in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights prevents authorities from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Having a cross tattoo easily conforms with the “free exercise” of religion. It is also a general exercise of “freedom of speech,” which comes directly after freedom of “religion” in the First Amendment.

Pressure on the military to eliminate the exercises and expressions of religion seldom targets the sights and sounds of Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other 216 denominations recognized and protected by the Department of Defense. That’s as it should be.

When activists complain of “religious” expression, they almost always mean “Christian” expression. Sure, Christian expression dominates religious rhetoric and symbolism. That’s because 70% of active-duty personnel identify as Christian.

No court has found an exception that says authorities get to quell the First Amendment rights of majorities. Freedom of religion mandates that all government authorities tolerate and defend expressions of faith, no matter how distasteful or politically taboo.

Good Christians witness their faith with acts and deeds more than they preach it or wear it, but are not absolved from witnessing. St. Francis of Assisi addressed proselytizing with words often misquoted to discourage expressions of faith.

“No brother should preach contrary to the form and regulation of the holy Church nor unless he has been permitted by his minister… All the Friars, however, should preach by their deeds.”

Despite frequent assertions to the contrary, the First Amendment does not grant anyone freedom from the sights and sounds of Christianity or any faith. We cannot have freedom of religion and expression if we demand the concealment of any peaceful belief — even nonstylish beliefs expressed with indelible ink.

The Gazette Editorial Board