You might be right in a way. I think we all agreed that when government agencies allows any sort of religious display, it’s either all or nothing–but that it seems more responsible to simply keep our public spaces free of such displays.

Where we may have missed the boat is on the specific intentions of the FFRF. It never occurred to me that the FFRF deliberately crafted an explicitly inflammatory sign with the singular intent of pointing out how volatile such an arrangement could become.

It did occur to me that the sign itself was meant to achieve this end by the virtue of it simply being an “atheist sign,” but never that authors tossed some extra “sauce” on it to emphasize their point. If so, I am still not sure that I would have gone about it in exactly the same way. I have always been impressed with the FFRF. They have always stood out as a class act in my mind, but this particular approach smacked of passive aggression.

It’s a small matter, though. In the end I can only applaud their efforts–whether they be exactly as I would do them or not. On the whole, the FFRF is one of the finest secular organizations there is and the world can only get better so long as they keep on keeping on.