Just as I was sincere when I wrote, "I'll try to read the full article when I'm not on my phone", I'm hoping that you were also sincere when you suggested, "You also might try reading the article.", and that you'd be willing to discuss the article.
I've now had the chance to read the article, and found the article particularly sensationalist, and not wanting to launch another 2000+ message thread that won't die, I'll let one portion of the article slide.
Let's take for example the following quote suggesting that Christians are taking the high road, "people of faith haven't sued to remove statues of atheists from public property".
Well, what legal standing would they have for such a lawsuit? The author accuses atheists of false dichotomies, but this is absolutely a false comparison. The lawsuit by atheists is to remove a statue of Jesus (God!), not a lawsuit to remove a statue of a figure that was religious. I doubt that any atheists are suing to remove a statue of Dwight D. Eisenhower just because he was Presbyterian.
Overall, my initial points about the text you quoted remain valid.
The assertion is that if Jesus was a mortal man it should be okay to quote Him at a public high school graduation, because He would just be another man.
Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, so he was just a man, so you're cool with him being quoted at graduation, no different than Nietzsche, right? Everybody's cool with the teachings of Ellen G. White being shared at graduation? She was just a woman. Maybe a little Buddhism or Scientology? Again, those are also just the teachings of other men.