I read the story from the link given and it didn't give what the story was about, just that FFRF is wrong and a rant. So I looked to see if there was another side. Couldn't find one representing the whole story so I went to FFRF to see what they were saying. Here's an important part missing from every Christian publication of the story.
--

Part of the memorial reads: "You must ask Jesus into your heart, believe he died for you and believe he rose again." The rest of the passage includes references to God and the bible.

Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, in her letter of complaint, wrote: "A plaque bearing this quotation would be appropriate at a church, a private club or a family...

I read the story from the link given and it didn't give what the story was about, just that FFRF is wrong and a rant. So I looked to see if there was another side. Couldn't find one representing the whole story so I went to FFRF to see what they were saying. Here's an important part missing from every Christian publication of the story.
--

Part of the memorial reads: "You must ask Jesus into your heart, believe he died for you and believe he rose again." The rest of the passage includes references to God and the bible.

Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, in her letter of complaint, wrote: "A plaque bearing this quotation would be appropriate at a church, a private club or a family altar . . . It is a well-established principle in law that once a government body accepts a privately-paid-for monument, that government body becomes the owner, the publisher of the message."

Gaylor said, "It's very appropriate to memorialize this deputy, but not to memorialize his religious beliefs. It doesn't matter that (the monument) was donated. When it goes on government property, it gives off the appearance that government is endorsing his views."

The Foundation has suggested the County return the monument to the donors if they are unwilling to compromise and return to compliance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
---

As you can see there was no "hatred for god" or for the hero this deputy was.

This is strictly an issue of government endorsement of a religious view which is a violation of the First Amendment. So why the lying and hate speech when the complete story proves otherwise?