You've stated, repeatedly, that atheism is a religion. You've further stated that removal of religious icons from public property is an endorsement of that religion. You then state that placement of icons from other religions on public property is not an endorsement of those religions. You have yet to explain this dissonance coherently. How is it endorsement in one case but not the other?

The reason no religion icons of any sort are allowd on public property is that their placement amounts to tacit government endorsement of that religion. You seem to be pissed because atheists, being atheists, have no religious icons to ban, so let me sugges this: from now on, assume that atheists worship Christopher Hitchens, and no images of his ghastly visage are permitted on public property either.