Ok, I understand the distinction, and it's a fair one. Well then, I do believe in a limited right to civic and not just public displays of religion. I hope my post #88 made it sufficiently clear where I would draw the line.
Here's the thing though, government is
suppose to be secular. Plain and simple. If someone were to erect some religious statue, or anything along those lines, upon government owned property it is essentially like saying that the government endorses and advertises that particular religion. That is a huge no-no.
Would you approve if someone painted a sprawling mural depicting a pentacle, zodiac signs, and the Maiden ,Mother, and Crone on the side of your county courthouse? What about a huge statue of the Hindu goddess Kali in the middle of the city park? A Star of David above the entrance to the city library? Would you approve of these things?
It's all or nothing. Either the government puts up some representation of every religion in existence or none at all. Being that the government is secular that problem is solved.
You want to proclaim your belief in Christ by displaying a grand cross in front of your house? Fine. You even want to get a billboard along Main Street? Also fine. But the line is drawn at the statue of Jesus in front of City Hall.