Probably the most stupid ruling I have ever heard of.
Don't conservatives usually demand that the Supreme Court look at the framers of the Constitution in order to determine what their intentions were? That was Scalia's argument against declaring sodomy one of the Ninth Amendment rights.
There is a big difference between assigning intentions VS. assigning intentions to objects.
I'm sorry if you cannot see the difference but its totally nuts and bizarre if we are going to use this as the method to determine if objects are objectionable in the public square.
Lets apply the test to something other than religious so that you can remove anti-religious bias and see what your advocating more clearly. Lets assume I commissioned an artist to produce Clinton and Monica in the act of nonsexual relations (BJ) and place this in the public square. My intentions given to the artist are to keep it accurate and historical. Lets further assume that all who see it believe it to be pornographic. Using this knew standard of determining the intentions of the author would require it be left in the square because the object isn't guilty.
Seriously, the intentions argument goes to the individual not the art. If the individual is guilty of promoting a religion then remove him. If the object in and of itself is judged as religious then remove it.