...and when we have Passover as our spring break, get back to me.

Oh, the poor Christians! The non-Christians have dared to rise up and give them lip!

Lest we forget, this issue does not involve a public display on private land, but a public display on public land maintained by everybody's money in the tax base of the area. This is not just a case of "I don't like looking at that". It's a case of "I don't want to have to pay for other people's religious expression with tax money because it violates the anti-establishment clause".

If Christians objected to a statue of the Buddha with an engraving of "The Eightfold Path" all by itself on the courthouse steps whose upkeep was paid for with public money, I would support them, even if it were a beautiful statue. Same principle. How many lone menorahs do we see put up by local governments in the public square in December? Any?

If a Christian objects to a work of art in a public place, he or she will have to prove, as the non-Christians have had to prove, that the work of art has an intrinsic religious meaning specific to a particular religion and thus violates the anti-establishment clause. Aesthetic objections don't pertain.

Christians believe themselves to be under "cultural attack" because they can't understand that the country belongs to everyone who lives here. This "attack" is merely groups of people standing up for their own beliefs by insisting that Christian symbols take the same position as their own, rather than the preeminence Christian symbols have enjoyed. If the Christians feel picked on, it might just be because the monuments and other encroachments on the anti-establishment clause belong to them. No one else is getting picked on because they don't own any targets.

This whole thing reminds me of the great outcry in the nation when restrooms for women had to be installed because uppity broads had the nerve to take jobs that "belonged" to men. Oh, the oppression! To have to behave in a way that includes others who used to have the good sense to be quiet, or better yet, to be absent!

The remark about dynamite vs. lawsuits was made to point out that lawsuits have their purposes. It's the way civilized people settle their arguments. Without the law, violence is the only way to effect change, and although some people don't like change, more people don't like violence. Turning to the law is not a sign of nuttiness. Calling legal opponents "nuts" because they are persistent is the mark of another characteristic, though.