" 'It's the sheer arrogance of believers in assuming that the rest of the planet should put up with this not-so-subliminal proselytising that's so amusing ("Get over it": - sorry, Joe, but you said it!)'

Like I put up with posters on the sides of buses saying God doesn't exist? Hey guess what. This country has freedom of speech. I'm allowed to say "God exists" in public, and you're allowed to say "No he doesn't." If you can't get over that, there are lots of nummy countries you might prefer to live in. Sadly for you some of the ones that most cracked down on religious people speaking out are now gone. Although I'm sure if you were interested you could get a bunch of people together and buy an island and insulate yourselves from the free speech of people you disagree with."

Silly, silly, mousethief. You picked this bit from me to include in your polemic, but unfortunately you completely misread the meaning it's meant to convey, and, even worse, you then go on to extrapolate that I'm somehow against free speech. Nowhere have I said that the public show of religious iconography, or wayside pulpits, or even those bells, should be curtailed. Pointing to the arrogant presumption by a religion that the whole world, including the non-religious or otherly-religious, deserves exposure to their wacky notions is not the same at all as my saying they should be stopped from doing it. As a result of this misreading you go off half-cock about free speech. I think you'd like me to be against free speech to help make your case but I can't oblige, sorry.