Wouldn't someone who banned a banner be a banner too?

The Passive Habit: The phony culture war and Christmas decorations

Just a general observation about the church-state-Christmas display debate: Who cares? Having the sense of humor I do, I'd let the skeppies put up any self-righteous mission statement they can dream up.

Should an atheist group be allowed to add a sign that states there are no gods and that religion is a myth to a holiday display?  Better yet, should anyone really care whether they do or not?  My response is pretty much summarized as an extended yawn:

Part of the problem is that there are worse problems than this.  For example, anyone swayed one way or the other by the inclusion or exclusion the banner needs some serious help learning basic logic.  The truth or falsity of the Bible rests on the Bible itself, not on propaganda plays (on both sides in this case).

A later, expanded comment:

I suppose I could have made that clearer by stating it as a conditional, as in, "If there is anybody who is..., then they need...."  I doubt there is anyone who really that lacking in intelligence to think "oh, look.  There's a sign that says there isn't any gods.  Therefore it must be true" (although given the general sorry state of (il)logic these days, it wouldn't totally surprise me either).  If no one is swayed, then excluding the banner serves no real purpose.  In the unlikely occurrence that someone is swayed, then he or she is so inept at logic that he or she would find some other "reason" to believe that anyway.
Then again, I feel the same about public displays of the Ten Commandments.  If any of them actually caused an upswing in morality (which I also doubt), it would probably be due more  works-based thinking than to true repentance.