The absence of religion in the public square would seem to accrue to the benefit of atheists, agnostics and secularists.
Why doesn't my "right not to be offended" obtain?
I don't think so. You need to read my posts more. :)
Where did I say there has to be an absence of religion? I'm quite supportive of retaining "under God" in public usage of the pledge of allegiance, since with it's lack of specificity, it isn't likely to offend any reasonable person. But highly specific religious texts and pronouncements, especially those that explicitly denigrate or declare superiority over differing belief systems, make reasonable people uncomfortable, when they are promulgated in public institutions -- particularly in courts, where people may reasonably feel that they are not getting impartial treatment if their professed belief system differs from the one publicly promoted at the courthouse.