With all the irritating billboards out there -- the garish illuminated ones, the ones for cholesterol-dealing fast food and CDs with lyrics guaranteed to offend someone, the wallpaper billboards of dubious legality plastered over the entire side of a building -- this is the one that ticked off Rancho Cucamonga so much that it got not only taken down, but destroyed?

The billboard was up for one week alongside Route 66, the Mother Road. It bore these words: '''Imagine No Religion.'' Okay, certainly a conversation-starter, but surely no more so than it was 37 years ago when John Lennon put it on his ''Imagine'' album.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, the group that put the billboard there as it has in eleven other states, is now suing Rancho Cucamonga and its redevelopment director, who supposedly contacted the billboard company to report residents' complaints and to ask whether anything could be done.

Gee, if only the city of Los Angeles were as quick to spring into action when it comes to handling its billboard blight!

But this is about free speech, not billboard laws -- the selective destruction of a mildly provocative message that a few dozen people bothered to complain about.

I suppose it's only surprising that I'm still surprised. Atheists rank among the most despised groups in the country. Over the decades, more Americans have told pollsters they would far rather vote for Muslims or Jews or Catholics -- name your religious minority of the moment -- than vote for atheists.

The numbers have shifted bit; fifty years ago, 75% of voters wouldn't vote for an atheist for president. A year ago that number had dropped to 53%, according to a Gallup poll, but Newsweek's poll the same year put the number at 63%.

It isn't just about public office; five years ago, a Pew poll found that 52% of Americans had an unfavorable or very unfavorable attitude about any atheists. By now someone's surely come up with bumper sticker, something like ''No God = No Good.'' (If anyone does decide to print those up, be sure to contact my lawyer about royalties.)

So, good work, you few dozen Rancho Cucamongans who complained about the billboard. You got your way.

Now, let's see what billboard goes up in place of ''Imagine No Religion.'' Maybe a big, juicy ad for a strip club.

Photo illustration courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation website.

Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate

On the day before Thanksgiving -- or two days before Black Friday, if that's a more meaningful calendar entry for you -- the Times' editorial board comes out strongly in favor of construction-paper costumes of Pilgrims and Native Americans. Its time for warring factions at Claremont Unified School District to end their bickering and let the kids enjoy their traditional celebration of the first Thanksgiving. After all, the lesson from that moment in history is that adversaries can, in fact, find common ground -- a lesson that seems to have been lost on the board members who nixed the costumes:

As for the Claremont school board: No seconds on pumpkin pie for you. Caving to the demands of a small group of oversensitive parents is cowardly and ill serves the district's children.

If you're determined to feel badly about the holiday, though, read Brown University historian Karl Jacoby's op-ed about the second Thanksgiving, celebrated 55 years after the harmonious original.

The price tag of Michelle Obama's dress: $148.

The value of Michelle Obama as fashion inspiration, charitable fundraising, and an "I want her dress" retail stimulus: priceless.

She didn't actually wear it, but a dress identical to the one the future First Lady wore on "The View" will be auctioned next Tuesday evening at the Ballona Institute's gala awards dinner in Marina del Rey.

[Full disclosure: I am one of the seven journalists being honored at the event, but I won't be bidding on the dress.]

It's the Donna Ricco black-and-white floral dress -- thin straps, narrow skirt, you remember. It generated so much excitement when Mrs. O wore it on television that stores nationwide couldn't keep it on the rack.

Its popularity was due in part to the fact that it looked great on her -- and ideally on other women -- and in part to the fact that it wasn't some four-figure, "ha-ha, you can't afford this" piece of haute couture. Thousands of American women could afford to buy it, and thousands did. Mrs. O wears pricier numbers too, from designers like Maria Pinto and Isabel Toledo, but on the affordable end of things, she could boost the American rag trade just by getting dressed every morning.

This particular frock was donated by the White House/Black Market store in Marina del Rey. It's a chain where Mrs. O shops, and whose name prompted some snarky remarks early in the campaign.

Free alterations are included in the winning bid, in case your homage to Mrs O doesn't extend to your physique.

George Frey/Getty Images

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been emphatic about its role in the Proposition 8 campaign. Yes, it strongly urged its members to donate to the Yes on 8 campaign to repeal the right of same-sex couples to marry, as well as encouraging them to volunteer for the campaign. But the actual donations of time and money came from Mormons, not the church.

Gay-rights activist Fred Karger takes exception to that description, and now the state Fair Political Practices Commission is listening. Karger alleged that the church organized out-of-state phone banks to work on the campaign, and distributed thousands of the nearly-ubiquitous lawn banners as well as other campaign materials -- none of it reported as non-monetary contributions as the law would require.

The FPPC said it will investigate the allegations. If they're found to have merit, the church could be fined for each infraction.

Pope Benedict XVI has caused a mini-schism among his flock with his "Back to the Future" views about worship, which include a fondness for the Latin Mass and elaborate "retro" vestments and a disdain for innovations that have made Catholic Sunday services indistinguishable from those in other churches.

But even some liberal Catholics who prefer "Kumbaya" to Gregorian chant may side secretly with the pope on his latest counter-reformational idea. Benedict has floated moving the "Sign of Peace" ceremony -- in which congregants shake hands, embrace and sometimes give each other the high five -- from immediately before Communion to an earlier point in the Mass.

The switch in time would be designed to promote "a more meditative climate" of worship, according to the Vatican. Cardinal Francis Arinze, the pope's soul mate in these matters, explained:  "The meaning of this gesture is often not fully understood. It is thought to be a chance to shake hands with friends. Instead it is a way to tell those nearby that the peace of Christ, really present on the altar, is also with all men."

There is a theological subtext to this change: The pope, like many conservatives, believes that post-Vatican II Catholics are more inclined to view the  Mass as a meal rather than a sacrificial rite. That said, he is on to something. I have attended Mass at Episcopal churches where the "Sign of Peace" drill takes place earlier in the service, after the recitation of the Creed, and was happy to have gotten it over with before the Eucharist proper began.

The really radical move would be to abolish the offering of the Sign of Peace, which in my experience is often a chaotic and confusing interlude. (Do you grab the paw of the person behind you or of the one in the pew ahead? Should children get a pat on the head? How about the people on the other side of the aisle? What if you're germophobic and the worshipper next to you has dirty hands? Is it OK to abbreviate "Peace be with you" to "Peace, man!"? Will God mind if you give your little brother a cootie handshake?)

This might seem an intra-Catholic issue. But, as with many religious controversies, it has implications in the wider world. We live in an age of hyper-informality in which ordinary people, not just Hollywood stars, kiss people they are meeting for the first time. (As the kids say, Eew!) It's unlikely that the pope's campaign will have a ripple effect on cocktail parties, but it's worth a try.

The Times editorial board weighs in today on President-elect Barack Obama's economic brain trust, especially two top advisors who represent a very different set of constituents. New York Federal Reserve chief Timothy F. Geithner, Obama's pick for Treasury secretary, has helped funnel billions in tax dollars toward financial institutions, while former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, Obama's choice for director of the National Economic Council, favors vast spending on another economic stimulus package. It's an appropriate approach given the extent of our financial troubles, but the new administration needs to do more than just broaden its focus beyond Wall Street: It needs to come up with a better rationale for when and when not to intervene in the market.

We also editorialize on the increasingly bizarre trial of the men accused of killing Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. After a military court decided to open its doors to journalists, they were abruptly shut again by a judge who claimed jurors feared for their safety -- yet one of the jurors subsequently told radio listeners that the jurors hadn't sought a closed court and had refused to sign a statement requesting a media ban. The Russian justice system itself is on trial in this case, so the judge needs to find a way to guarantee both jurors' safety and the security of state secrets.

Lastly, The Times points out that the still-undecided state Senate race between Republican Tony Strickland and Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson doesn't make a strong case for redistricting -- but it's a good idea anyway. Strickland and Jackson ran the kind of polarizing, old-school campaign common in today's "safe" districts, even though their 19th Senate District contains a pretty even match of Republicans and Democrats. The idea of Proposition 11 on the Nov. 4 ballot is to end gerrymandering and make more districts similar to the 19th, with the goal of forcing politicians to listen to a broader cross-section of their constituents and thus encouraging more centrist lawmakers. It's a solid notion, even if it didn't quite work in the case of Strickland and Jackson.

On the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg calls public-school teachers' unions "arguably the single worst mainstream institution in our country today." Goldberg is tired of conservatives accusing President-elect Barack Obama of hypocrisy for sending his children to expensive private schools while rejecting vouchers that would allow poor families to do the same, and even more tired of Democratic politicians in thrall to teachers' unions. Both sides simply need to stop tolerating awful schools.

Also, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Jonathan Hafetz, who represents a Qatari man arrested in 2001 and never tried because he was labeled an "enemy combatant," calls his client's detention "a radical departure from America's deepest values, a moment when our country lost its bearings."

For more than 200 years, America has stood by the principle that people can't be imprisoned without being charged. It not only embodies the country's ideals but also reflects a practical understanding that the criminal justice system remains the most effective way of fighting terrorism.

Finally, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urges Americans to do a better job of looking after their veterans and the families of those who have been killed in action.

We live in a country that doesn't force our young men and women to pick up arms and go fight. We don't have to. They do it willingly, even eagerly. Not because they enjoy danger or killing or sacrifice, but rather in spite of those things. They serve and they work so hard so that someday -- maybe -- our children and grandchildren might not have to. All they want in return is our gratitude, 100% of it. It's not too much to ask.

* Illustration by Jonathan Twingley / For The Times

Doug Benc, Getty Images

What do businesses do when they get outbid for a contract? When they're broadcasters, they lobby Congress to throw out the results of the auction. That appears to be the strategy of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, whose TV board adopted a resolution today suggesting that there was something, well, un-American about a pay-TV network holding the exclusive rights to the major college football bowl games.

Last week, the Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN -- a network beamed into virtually every cable- and satellite-TV subscriber's homes -- won the rights to broadcast the Bowl Championship Series games from 2011 through 2014. Included in that package are the Rose Bowl and a bunch of less interesting contests played on or around New Year's Day. For football fans who don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV, this was at least as big a deal as when Monday Night Football moved to ESPN two years ago after 36 years on free TV. And for broadcasters like Fox, which reportedly bid $400 million to ESPN's $500 million, it wasn't just a big deal -- it was an attack on one of the citizenry's fundamental rights.

AP Photo

For Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the onetime driver for Osama bin Laden, it may be a case of "all's well that ends well," but Americans who care about due process can't feel the same way. The 40-year-old Yemeni is being returned to his native country after seven years in U.S. custody, mostly at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The topline message to the rest of the world is a good one: his release is a reminder that even the most powerful forces in this country can be overcome by court-appointed lawyers and honest jurors. As flawed as the military commission system is, it worked for Hamdan. But Hamdan's repatriation doesn't alter the fact that the Bush administration unsuccessfully opposed his release in accordance with a 66-month sentence imposed by a military commission. (The commission gave Hamdan credit for time served before his trial, meaning that he would be eligible for release in January.)

Hamdan was convicted in August of providing material support for terrorism, but acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiracy to engage in terrorism. The image of Hamdan that emerged from his trial was that of a minor functionary, not an intimate adviser to a master terrorist. The jury was presented with this characterization of Hamdan from 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

He did not play any role. He was not a soldier, he was a driver. His nature was more primitive (Bedouin) person and far from civilization. He was not fit to plan or execute.

Prosecutors apparently couldn't convince a military jury otherwise.

But even after Hamdan's sentence was imposed, U.S. officials couldn't let go of him -- neither literally nor as the personification of their argument that the threat posed by inmates at Guantanamo extended beyond "high value" prisoners like KSM. Fortunately, the administration is about to surrender not just Hamdan but also its authority over Guantanamo. That will allow Barack Obama to close the prison and decide how to separate dangerous terrorists held there from those who have been punished enough -- or shouldn't have been punished at all.

Anita Bryant husband Bob Green, celebrating passage of 1977 law banning adoption by gay couples. (AP Photo)

"Relatively" is an important caveat. Although miffed same-sex couples in California probably wouldn't find any comfort in the fact that they don't live Florida, the Sunshine State is positively medieval compared to the Golden State on gay rights. As in California on Nov. 4, voters in Florida passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage -- an amendment that needed 60% support to pass, not the too-easily-surmountable simple majority our state Constitution suffers from. Yet writing discrimination into its constitution wasn't much of a leap for the state that thrust Anita Bryant to homophobe super-stardom. Florida doesn't have civil unions, and for 31 years, it has heartlessly banned same-sex couples from adopting children (gay couples can serve only as foster parents).

Thanks to a state court ruling today, however, the adoption ban may soon be kicked out of the 21st century. According to the Associated Press:

Florida's strict law banning adoption of children by gay people was found unconstitutional Tuesday by a state judge who declared there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children." She also noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida....

Because state attorneys immediately filed a notice of appeal, the ruling is likely to set the stage for a battle that could reach the Florida Supreme Court. A judge in gay-friendly Key West also found the law unconstitutional in September, but that ruling has not been appealed and has limited legal reach.

Florida is the only state with an outright ban on gay adoption. Arkansas voters last month approved a measure similar to a law in Utah that bans any unmarried straight or gay couples from adopting or fostering children. Mississippi bans gay couples, but not single gays, from adopting.

Here's the money argument from the state of Florida:

The state presented experts who claimed there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among gay couples, that they were more unstable than heterosexual unions and that the children of gay couples suffer a societal stigma.

Yeah, "children of gay couples suffer a societal stigma" -- to which the state of Florida actively contributes by banning same-sex partners from adopting and marrying. These anti-gay arguments just write themselves, don't they?

Bill Boyarsky sings a song in praise of using public works as a way to help California, and in particular Los Angeles, through the economic crisis. Boyarsky notes that voters recently agreed to bill themselves for a high-speed north-south passenger train and a Wilshire subway. The task now is to keep neighborhod activist groups from stalling the projects.

"A current example of neighborhood activism is opposition to the Expo Line. Opponents in South Los Angeles are concerned about student safety at two schools near the line, Dorsey High School and Foshay Learning Center. Residents of Cheviot Hills and other Westside neighborhoods fear train noise and traffic disruption during construction and potential danger to students at nearby schools, such as Overland Elementary."

Elsewhere on today's Op-Ed page, Gregory Rodriguez offers his take on Ayman Zawahiri's "house Negro" comment (see the Editorial Page's version from last week) and author and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky calls on President-elect Obama to reject the precedents of Presidents Ford and Clinton, and instead follow the example of President George W. Bush, by meeting with foreign dissidents.

The Editorial Page bids farewell, and none too soon, to Rep. John D. Dingell as he leaves his post as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; presses the state Legislature to press lenders to slow foreclosures and streamline loan modifications; and rejects calls for an Obama blacklist of policymakers who supported going to war in Iraq.

In Letters, our editorial on Proposition 8 going back to court and our reference to the "tyranny of the majority" moved readers to school us on the role of the legal system. But really folks, we didn't make up the stuff about "tyranny of the majority."