Personally, I'm a fan of Dave Silverman and very much appreciate the coverage and work he's done. He certainly showed up the faux news people in the clip posted here. Likewise with his handling of O'Reilly. We're still getting mileage from "the tide goes in, the tide goes out." In fact, my AA membership had lapsed for a couple of years until Dave re-energized me. I wouldn't be surprised if their membership #s have gone up sharply this year.
It may be a close call on the 9/11 cross - it depends on how they place it. If it sits as one of many exhibits, saying "some people saw this as a sign," then I don't have a problem with it. If it's placed up front, saying "look, a sign from god, in an attack against us Christians" then it's not ok. And, without knowing how it will be used, we have to have these challenges. Each little bit of established religion counts as precedent. I haven't dug too much into that lawsuit, but the Non Prophets Podcast of Aug 6 had a good discussion.
A couple of more thoughts...
Don't feel you have to defend AA or that they represent you. Remember that atheists are not a religion or club. Our only definite definite commonality is lack of belief in gods. So, if you're ever put on the spot with "you atheists suing over such and such," you have the right to say "it's not me." But, we should all look into AA's reasons for the lawsuit so that we can present any part of their case that we do agree with.
So, thanks for reminding me... I'll do a bit more reading of various viewpoints on the matter.