This story has reached the Washington Post where it's claimed it may get removed without even going to court.

Something I learned from this discussion is that I am more angry and reviled by accommodationists who side with religious privilege than I am passionate about secularism itself. I think secularism is a compromising and weak position, but nonetheless essential for a properly functioning democracy.

I am a secularist but secularism is not atheism nor is it anti-religious. I am anti-religious, but do not consider using force to rid the world of this evil. The only justification for force is self-defense, and when secularism is ignored for religious privilege, then it starts becoming a matter of self-defense. Civil disobedience is not an option I'd rule out, either.

Also, it's not a bloody symbol, it's a physical object. Symbols aren't being removed or destroyed here, but the physical objects which are obviously used as markers for property and de-secularizing public land.