Tundrayeti:

You're hopeless.

If you wish to actually listen to my point and respond to it, please do so.. you can respond at several places now, in which I've illustrated my point and you've blythely ignored it and re-posted your straw-man.

Until you do actually engage my arguments, I won't bother to respond further. I don't particularly enjoy the current trend of shouting past each other and calling it dialogue.

Enjoy conversing with yourself, it seems that's what you wish to do with me as an audience... but your self-to-self "debate" has bored me, so I'm moving on.

:)

Your "point" appears to be that you didn't say what you plainly said, and you wish to change the subject and use convoluted metaphors about nekkid pictures and red paint.

YOU gave this thread its title.

YOU SAID that atheism is a religion (you're wrong there as in so many things, but nevermind that for now).

YOU SAID that removal of religious objects from government property amounted to government endorsement of atheism as a state religion.

YOU SAID that placement of religious icons on public property was not government endorsement of those religions.

YOU HAVE FAILED to coherently address this inconsistency. Bizarre metaphorical stories about street gangs don't cut it.

You have also consistently insisted on conflating "removal from public property" with "banning all religious practice,."