Smithsonian Show Controversy

The New York Times ran a story about a show at the Smithsonian. Apparently a part of it was taken down because some high-ranking Christian officials and Republican politicians found it offensive, as one of the videos depicted ant crawling on a cross. Because of this, the Warhol Foundation has threatened to stop funding the Smithsonian completely if they do not put the work back up.

It's obvious that there's a certain amount of censorship going on here, and my first instinct is to agree loudly with the Warhol Foundation and take artistic offense. The act of removing the work sets a bad precedent for future art that can be deemed offensive, and I'm glad that the Warhol Foundation is against such things.
However. I have to question the common sense of removing all future funding because one work of art was taken down for offending some people. What about all of the other artists who want to show their work at the Smithsonian, and would only be able to do so with funding from the foundation? The group calls this particular piece an important work of art, and I wonder if they assume that justifies throwing all other shows aside. It doesn't seem fair, and it ends up turning the entire thing into a question of how interconnected one artist is to another.