context: Were this a case of the Crucifixion standing alone, the inquiry would end here. There is abundant case law holding unconstitutional the prominent display of a cross without any detracting features.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: declaring unconstitutional a city display of a menorah standing alone during Chanukah
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (holding, impermissible the prominent display of a cross on a public building); see also Friedman v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bernalillo, 781 F.2d 777, 782 (10th Cir.1985) (the presence of a Latin cross in a city logo violates the establishment clause), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1169, 106 S.Ct. 2890, 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986); cf. Kaplan v. City of Burlington, 891 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 2619, 110 L.Ed.2d 640 (1990) (declaring unconstitutional a city display of a menorah standing alone during Chanukah).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 781 F.2d 777, 782
citation_b.parenthetical: the presence of a Latin cross in a city logo violates the establishment clause
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (holding, impermissible the prominent display of a cross on a public building); see also Friedman v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bernalillo, 781 F.2d 777, 782 (10th Cir.1985) (the presence of a Latin cross in a city logo violates the establishment clause), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1169, 106 S.Ct. 2890, 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986); cf. Kaplan v. City of Burlington, 891 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 2619, 110 L.Ed.2d 640 (1990) (declaring unconstitutional a city display of a menorah standing alone during Chanukah).