Not interested in the Constitution - heck it can always be amended - the question of God is eternal.

You know what else is prima facie foolish? To argue and defend something upon which everyone else in a discussion agrees. No one is disputing that legal fact. We're just questioning the merits of that particular sign. Not because it promotes atheism, but because it doesn't seem like a tactful way to bring the message to those unfamiliar with it.

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint. So in that sense, it's better to allow all expression than none, because by default, that's atheist expression.

That I don't buy - I think atheism is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof

Please...quote me, word for word, stating you were "using religion as a weapon."

Implicit strawman argument.

Subjectively, as just admitted, sure...

Words have meaning ...sorry, no cofusion there.

My declration of such fallcious are the indetification of those fallacies.

Hence the fallacy of that argument.

Nothing within the statement, context or otherwise, stated that atheism was "the best way" to convince people that "atheism is preferable."

Again, another subjective (and incorrect) interpretation of what was stated.

S.D.

NOT without the appropriate vote.

Which, clearly, has been debated for CENTURIES (i.e. precisely because the existence of God 'His' so-called word prescribing 'His' religious tenants/facts/etc. have not been proven)!

S.D.

And that's why you're my favorite atheist. Most of them are proselytizing atheists, which I can't stand.

NOT everyone within this discussion has agreed. Try again.

Actually, they have; be it indirectly or directly (i.e. Moonlight's comment about it being "hate speech," etc.).

Which is akin to questioning its legal right to be presented on public property!!

Those unfamiliar with it!!??!!

Please...religion has been questioned nearly as long as it is has existed!

S.D.

"That I don't buy - I think 'religious dogma' is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof."

S.D.

And I'm fine with the notion that there are things that just "unknowable" even our own experience of the world cannot be "proven" to be objective truth (I clearly break with Kant on that one). Since neither position can be proven, from a pragmatic sense I find the argument rather pointless.