"And though our Founding Fathers' purpose was to protect religious freedom, it was not to favor or prefer one religious belief over others (or religion over non-religion). That's why when Thompson and others cry persecution for not receiving privileged treatment, it's a little hard to take them seriously. "

Privileged treatment? Apparently he does not have the privilege of even the "loose weight now" signs.

"It just so happens that this street median in Michigan seems not to be one of them. "

Fine if the reason was that it was blocking sight or making it dangerous to drive but not because they don't like what he is saying.
It is amazing, they say it violates our constitution, these people are government and apparently have never even read the thing.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Just who is acting outside the constitution?

I'll give thees officials the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they are acting in fear of some thought police PC crusaders or something but this is still persecution of religious acts.

"Would you similarly support a Buddha statue in the meridian? "

Yes that is exactly the point. If you choose to be a nation that supports free speech then you cannot limit it because of religion. In no way could you consider this a government establishment of religion, that is the only thing the first amendment guards against(regarding religion.) It is no different then any other sign or display, it should not be treated differently. So the question is, if it were a display of a new sandwich at a sub shop would you have a problem with it?

"So when the athiests want to post a sign that says "Jesus Is a Fraud" in Vegas-Style lights, and when the Muslims want to put up a giant diorama in the middle of the public park, you'd want your taxes to go to support that? "

I have no problems with anyone's right to express themselves. Like i said there should be no difference between religious expressions and non-religious. In fact by the government making the distinction you could say that that would be establishing a religion.

"Nonsense. As soon as you use one penny of public money or one square centimeter of public land, it's quite clear: My tax dollars are going to support your religion."

OR you could say that your tax dollars are going to support free speech. It is not the fault of the religious types that so many have lost sight of what freedom of speech is. Just because it is of a religious nature does not mean it should be limited.
I doubt if there would be any problems if rather then a nativity scene it was a sign for a Martha Stewart book signing. How can you take away a right from one group of people because of their religion and somehow it not be establishing religion, in this case atheism.

"Sorry, I don't believe you."

Not my problem.

"You're only in favor because it's YOUR views being displayed."

My views are that each religion(Except perhaps the occult) has positives that it relays to the people. IF a religion promotes personal growth, the inherent good outweighs and dogma issues i any have with it.

"Put it on your property all you want. No limits there."

You still have not answered the question about non-religious displays.

""militant atheists, acting like the Taliban,"

.......this is a contradiction......."

You are right it should probably change Taliban to Stalin or Mao or something.

"Probably because it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not religious displays should be supported by tax dollars."

Should any display be "supported by our tax dollars"?

By the way what specifically do you think this display cost us taxpayers?

"Oh...YOU get to decide...got it."
I have not seen anything in the occult that is beneficial to society, that is why the perhaps was in there.