I wonder how well the base would survive if the community supporting it would band together and refuse service to anyone stationed on the base?

How would the taxpayers like to pay for having to ship supplies like food and condoms from places farther away?

Ah, more of the attack on Christianity.

Let's analyze the analysis, shall we?

"Government facilities don’t have the right to display religious symbols at taxpayer expense."

Government facilities don't have rights; only individuals have rights. Government facilities have powers and obligations.
The Constitution does not forbid any religious expression, even on public property, it forbids the creation of a national church (as the left is doing with the Green religion). It otherwise protects the exercise of religion from governmental interference. It does not specify locations. Question: should the decent citizens of the community hosting the military facility, and the decent members of the military, fund a creche out of their own pocket, would the objection still exist, as taxpayers were no longer funding it?

"The courts have been clear about this. If the base wanted to display a crèche, it should have included symbols of other faiths and non-religious symbols as well."

Why? It shouldn't have "included" symbols of other faiths in a nativity scene, as the one has nothing to do with the other. As for providing symbols of other faiths on base, certainly. I would have no objection, for example, of the display of a faux Jew's head spitted on a bloody pike during Ramadan, on a military base, for example.
More sincerely, there would be nothing wrong with a Menorah displayed during Channukah.

Does the base ever put up a poster for a rock concert or other event during the year? Does the base ever have any displays for Independence Day... at taxpayer expense? Then it's hypocrisy to demand that it reverse the 1st Amendment to protect PRICKS from exposure to the dominant religion of the U.S.

"* The Freedom From Religion Foundation “intimidated the state of Washington into banning all holiday decorations from the Capitol building”: "

Thank you. This was a direct attack on Christianity and Christmas by PRICKS. That it was resolved at detriment to traditional American culture and society does not preclude it being an attack on Christmas. The anti-religious display could have been put up any time of year, or all year, but it wasn't Ramadan or Passover that were targeted, but Christianity. I repeat: the exercise of religion is protected, not the feelings of intolerant PRICKS.

"* The FFRF “bullied an Oklahoma school into banning all religious-themed Christmas songs from its ‘December Play’”:"

Funny how a search of the Oklahoman's archives didn't even pick up one article about this incident.

I *did* come across a story from 2001 where some PRICK had put up an advertisement for an adult bookstore directly across from the New Life Christian Academy (which vandals tore down, and there was much rejoicing)
http://newsok.com/adult-message-stripped...

Oh, and a story of a socialist discipline policy in the Sulphur elementary school, from 2001, where they were punishing children based upon popular "vote".
http://newsok.com/discipline-policy-stir...

"* “Attempts to ban Christmas observances have occurred in schools in Bulloch County, Georgia, and Frisco, Texas.”: The Bulloch County story was debunked a few days ago. It was a typical attempt by Fox News to slime a public school. The Frisco situation involved an email that was forwarded to a number of parents claiming that the school had banned the word “Christmas” and the colors red and green. The email had no connection to the school, and officials quickly issued a statement noting that the district has no such policies in place."

Was the email issued or not? So long as it was, it constitutes an attack on Christmas.

(As soon as the article attacked Fox News, it lost all credibility).

And then he concedes that the attack on Christmas and Christianity is working:

"On Tuesday, my colleague Simon Brown wrote about a new poll showing that more and more Americans are celebrating Christmas as a secular holiday."

Typical of modern, hypocritical, entitlement pigs, they won't give up the fun and goodies associated with the holiday, just the purpose of the holiday.

I love the irony involved; Christianity is attacked as somehow being oppressive because it is practiced by such a vast majority of Americans (because the country was created by and largely populated by Christians and Christian immigrants... crime of crimes!), and then the attack on Christianity is further justified on the basis that Christian observances appear to be on the wane, after a century long unrelenting attack.

"Of course, they still insist that they have the right to hijack the power of government and shove this festering theological fruit cake down everyone else’s throat."

Such a hateful comment directed at Jews or even Moslems would be roundly condemned by the same people who applaud this article, as no doubt my Jewish head on a pike sarcasm above will be.