Wow, as stated, great points! It's wonderful to see this discussed so intelligently, passionately, and respectfully.
I thought I'd just throw this in, more about freedom of speech, but also action and association, maybe not as higher thought as some other posts, but here we go:
I am, as many of us are, associated with an organization, whether local, national, or international. These organizations put some guidlines/rules/restrictions on us as members and therefore representatives. Drinking in our letters, insulting other members and groups, illegal activity, yelling our cheers in a quiet restaurant as a group: These activities are frowned upon, and perhaps punishable, because they reflect poorly on our sorority/fraternity. While I have the freedom to say whatever I want, and in my own home do (almost) whatever I want, I still have a responsibility to my sorority to uphold their values and standards, which I agreed upon when pledged and initiated, and everytime I wear my letters and pay dues.
Public officials, judges, the president all hold such positions as well. They have taken on an office to serve their country, and represent us, all of us. What they do or think as a person is their business (to, obviously, a certain extent - illegal activity is not an issue here for me, as monuments and religious artifacts are not illegal), but when they begin to associate it with their position of authority/organization/business/county/state in such a direct way, that takes on new meaning. If a judge sentenced someone for getting a divorce, just because his religion says it's wrong, and there is no government law to uphold this, then it is wrong.
Government sponsored art exhibits, etc. are different than those pieces placed in a court of law, plus the exhibits funded are most often (or should be) in places where you must chose to see them, and are not forced to as in a public space. As well, there are a variety of them, all representing and depicting different views, not one particular one.
The fact is, that monument represented something highly and commonly connected with a religion. They may be, when interpreted, standard moral codes, but they are still religious. Just because "The Last Supper" could be seen as just a bunch of hairy guys eating dinner doesn't mean it's not religious in its connections and meaning.
Plus, Christianity is not the only religion with these ideas, so why have it be the only one represented.
Unfortunately, yes, Chrstians get the blunt end of things. I totally agree, if it was a Aboriginal, Chinese or Japanese religious sculture or hanging, it wouldn't have raised such a fuss. But, the the history of Christianity makes it payable to this, the domination and suppression of other religions in the past means we have to be more sensitive to it now. And principally, no matter the religion, the issue should still have the same meaning and controversy.
Has to rewritting our history, we're not removing every trace of Christianity, just keeping it where it belongs, in churches, art, writing, museums, not government buildings.
K, this is such a hard topic to write a post that clearly portrays my opinions, so hopefully you got the gist of what I meant. Maybe swissmiss04 elaborated on some of my points better
Sorry it's so long!