Are people really so obtuse as to not be able to understand why people do no want religious objects enshrined on public property? Or is this another case of willful refusal to understand? Personally I see no more harm in putting up temporary Christmas decorations on the courthouse lawn than putting up temporary Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu decorations in the same place on other holidays, so long as there is no favoritism shown by the government or the laws for one religion over another. But all too often these things are used nowadays as stalking horses, and are not intended chiefly to celebrate a holiday, but as a means to claim possession. This is too often about TURF. The religious object is actually intended to say, “This is OUR turf.” Or: “If you do not share OUR veneration for these symbols, then you really don’t belong in, or are not really a member of, the community whose shared property this is.” I’ve seen this in practice. I don’t claim to have the perfect answer; I don’t think there is one, but a little sympathy and consideration for the other fellow’s point of view is certainly called for. P.S. There was a time, no so long ago, when only Catholics put up creches at Christmas, for Protestants thought them idolatrous. Christmas trees originally would be seen only in Protestant houses to set them off from Catholics. While in Puritan New England in colonial days Christmas as essentially outlawed as a pagan festival.