You ASSUME that it is, nothing of the sort points to that.
The point that you;re making however, is equally as disturbing...you take offense at an imagined implication of a connection between this article and Christianity, and you immediately suggest that a word should not be used because you may be offended by it, AND EVEN IF IN FACT IT WAS AN ALLUSION TO CHRIST'S CRUCIFIXION, the writer has a Constitutionally protected right to speak his mind.
People like you are dangerous.
You're nuts. I'm not violating this guy's constitutional rights. I've got just as much right to express my opinion as he does.