Haha, this is pretty funny. Of course, the answer is that none of this crap should be on the courthouse lawn. The FSM clashes horribly with the building, and all the other stuff on the lawn makes the whole place look kitchy. It seems they've decided to allow people to clutter the lawn with whatever crap they can think of. I don't see why anyone stopped with FSM, why not put something on the lawn representing every religion possible. It will look horrible, but at least we'd all have an equal say in its horribleness, right?

Quoted: Despite the vast number of religions, nearly everyone in the world believes in the same things: the existence of a soul, an afterlife, miracles, and the divine creation of the universe. Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered two related facts that may account for this phenomenon. One: human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena. And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry. Which leads to the question ...

Quoted: Some evolutionists are arguing, for example, that 'there seems to be no natural law sufficient to describe Darwinian pre-adaptations', as evolutionary theorist Stuart Kauffman puts it. A Darwinian pre-adaption is a property that has no selection value in one environment, it's value only emerging in another later. 'An example is human middle-ear bones, which are derived from three adjacent jawbones of an early fish,' Kaufmann continues. And its not just ears. Lungs, hearts, livers and much more besides fall in the same category. (The battle over spandrels will be familiar to many, recently stirred up by Jerry Fodor.)

Quoted: By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition, a computer program may explain how humans evolved a spiritual side

This is a detailed Atlantic article from 1870.

Quoted: The Tibetan lama listened respectfully to the Jesuit priest and replied, "Your religion is the same as ours."

Quoted: Relativism and fundamentalism seem, at first sight, to be direct opposites. Rather, I think, they are two sides of the same coin. Both are rooted in the same distinctly modern phenomenon. Modernization progressively undermines the closed communities in which human beings lived through most of history, communities in which there was a very high degree of consensus about the basic cognitive and normative definitions of reality. Such consensus brings about a situation in which these definitions have the status of taken-for-granted, self-evident truth.

Under modern conditions, where almost everyone lives in communities in which diversity has taken the place of consensus, certainty is much more difficult to come by. Relativism can be described as a world view that not only acknowledges but celebrates the absence of consensus. So-called post-modernist theorists like to speak of narratives and, in principle, every narrative is as valued as any other. The moral end result of this world view can be captured by imagining a television interview with a cannibal. “You believe that people should be cooked and eaten. I certainly don’t want to be judgmental, but the audience will be interested. Tell us more.” (Laughter.) This is not all that fictitious.

Quoted: And here’s something else I’d like to know: When did the Scientologists make off with the cross? You know, the cross—symbol of Christianity for two thousand years now. And how did they do it without a peep of protest from Pat Robertson or Pope Benedict or Bill Donohue or Rev. Wright or John Hagee or Concerned Women for America or Tim Burgess?