If religion is banished from public it is oppressive – why is that a straw man?

Who in the world is trying to “banish” religion? All the FFRF is trying to do is prohibit government endorsement or promotion of any one religion or another.

Freedom of religion allows people to practice and promote any religion they wish.
Freedom from religion allows those who do not choose to adhere to any religion the freedom to do so.

Both rights are guaranteed in our Constitution.

So what was the outcome of this case?

The outcome has not been decided (or released) yet. Expect it sometime early this summer.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ~ from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

You can read more on this http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

As for your other question FFRF answers that too http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

Isn’t removing religion from public places hostile to religion?
No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran (“one nation under God”), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course–neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

So, go ahead and pray, if you wish, just don’t insist others do so.

Ian: The idea of freedom from religion comes from the fact that the Constitution forbids a governmental establishment of religion. And that thing about enforcing secularism is one big juicy strawman.

Would it be as equally wrong for a public figure to instruct people NOT to pray? Getting rid of religion from the public square is surely oppresive in the extreme (as extreme as the crazy theocrats who want to enforce religious morality). To enforce secularism is based on the delusion that somehow faith is a private thing that has no place in public. I like Jim Wallis’s statement that “faith may be personal, but it is never private”.