Americans United Asks Town of Frankenmuth, Michigan to Take Down Giant Cross

We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

I am also from Michigan, only about half an hour from Frankenmuth actually. I don’t think the city needs a huge cross to show it’s heritage. The whole town shows it. 

It is never acceptable to allow violations of the First Amendment. Never, no exceptions, no matter how small the violation.

Give an inch, somebody is going to take a mile. Let one town get away with something like this, others will point to it as precedent.

I’ve lived in Munich, and I know that it’s completely unnecessary for a town in Michigan to celebrate its Bavarian heritage with Christian symbols on public property. The Catholicism of Bavaria is irrelevant here, since any business that wants to emphasize that is free to do so. FWIW, I’ve never seen a giant cross set up in a park in Bavaria. Lots of them on top of churches, but that’s about it.

Wow, way to miss my point entirely. These aren’t some theocrats trying to take over government. The whole town is dripping with Christian influence. It is part and parcel with the theme of the town. Is the cross necessary? No.  Look into the town and consider the context before going on your overblown rant.  

The Christian theme running throughout the city is part of the attraction. It’s the point of the town. Yeah, perhaps it is technically a violation when viewed narrowly but the cross makes absolute sense in the broader context of the town. 

It would be like me showing up at a rock concert and than complaining about the guitars being too loud. 

I go to Frankenmuth every year, as I live close to the city. I expect the businesses to represent the Christmas theme, not the secular government for that city. Taking down a cross on public property is really no big deal and won’t distract from the tourism.

I guess what I am arguing is that there is secular grounds to defend this on. The town has a very large historical/anthropological component to it. You can’t talk about the culture in that town separate from the religion because the culture they are trying to recreate or depict was a religious one. Seriously take a step back from the culture wars and understand the deep meaning of what I am getting at. 

I find it very arrogant of you to claim to speak on the behalf of anybody but yourself. Especially without permission. Were you appointed to some seat of authority that gives you the right to speak on behalf of all the people in the state of Michigan? — You should probably pass the buck on to someone who actually HAS been appointed to have the permission of the people(s) of Michigan, to speak on their behalf.

Fine. But it belongs on private property. THAT is my point. If you can’t understand that, then I don’t know what to say to you. The town is part of the state, which is part of the government… Therefore must be accommodating to ALL people. So unless they intend on allowing such statues from ALL religions on public property, which is absurd and very implausible, then the only reasonable action is to allow NO religious statues (etc…) on public property.

Also, that is not a secular argument at all. It should stay because the culture was religious… — That is secular? Sorry dude, but you’re wrong there.

 and if it marks a tourist destination, shouldn’t there be a neon jesus, all bedecked in lights hanging from that cross???

I’m sure if Jesus came back the first thing he’d want to see is the symbol of his torture and murder. Yup, that’s just what he’d want to see.

 Just pray to your almighty god for the cross to stay, see where that gets you.

He’s just reciting the state constitution – one doesn’t need permission to do that. 
Funny, I encounter more anti – freedom rhetoric in this forum than anywhere else . Anyone who isn’t in lock step with the atheist agenda is criticized in a very arrogant “holier than thou” way. I would think atheists would be more open minded!

YAY! Go get ’em, Americans United! Where do I sign?!?
America is going through a learning/awakening phase regarding freedom from parasitic memes. The chains are being broken, slowly.

The Town can’t have an official religion. That’s the point being rightfully made.

Then I didn’t miss your point, and I stand by my original comments. There is no way to view the cross that makes sense. If enough people think they need crosses to convey some sense of Bavaria (nonsense, in my opinion), I’m sure there’s no shortage of private property to put them up. “Technically a violation” is another way of saying it’s a violation. It’s inappropriate, illegal, and needs to be fixed.

If there was such a thing as Jesus, and if he did come back, I’d love to see his face when all he saw around was the torture device of his death.  100% think he would believe everyone wants to crucify him…..

You don’t want to open that can of worms.  That would pretty much allow government to do whatever they want with religion then just sell it off.

Not to mention, how do you sell it?  An open auction?  And if an atheist, mormon, jew, etc… bought it could they tear it down?

Joe brings up a very interesting point here, and it is not without some merit.  However, I think the problem here is that Christianity is still very much alive and well in our society; so it is harder to distinguish between the use of Christian symbols as cultural/historical artifacts as opposed to propaganda.  By contrast, I don’t think there would be any stink raised about a statue of Wotan or Zeus in some town with Nordic or Greek heritage, because the overwhelming understanding is that these are mythological figures.  Until our society relegates Jesus, Moses, and Allah to the same category as Wotan and Zeus, it will be problematic to consider such a display to be legal under the constitution.

You caught me, my agenda is totally to make the country follow its own damn laws.

I agree. Virginia Beach has a large statue of Neptune on the boardwalk. Given the current social and religious climate, no one is likely to see it as governmental endorsement of religion. A cross or statue of Jesus would have a very different feel to it.

the cross is not a reminder of death, its a reminder of dedicated faith. I PRAY FOR YOU.

If you don’t like the cross and you don’t live in Frankenmuth…..don’t bother to come to the town if it is so upsetting to you. It’s not like the town is sending out flyers to your house or community with this cross on it stating “Hey come view our cross so we can push our beliefs on you.” Of everything that goes on in our world, people want to create a fuss over a cross that is stuck on a piece of land? 

I would like to remind you that Christmas is not about greed and gluttony. That is what it is sadly mistaken for. Everyone gets caught up in the gifts and the food and forget the real meaning for Christmas. The real Meaning of Christmas is CHRIST. We celebrate CHRISTmas because God gave his one and only son, Jesus, to die for all of us. On the cross. I live very close to the cross and pass it everyday when I go in to town. I am proud that our city has it. Even if you make them take it down or give it to a private company or something, What will you get from it? Knowing that when people come into town they don’t have to see it? It seems like there are much more important issues that you could be worrying about.

It’s time to push back!!!!  I AM TIRED OF my RIGHTS to have the Cross on PUBLIC property being violated!!!!  IF YOU DON’T LIKE LOOKING AT IT..THEN DON”T!  YOU DON’T HAVE TO LOOK, keep your eyees on the road and drive!

 You have no such right, and you’re a liar to claim otherwise.

You just missed the whole thing about the “stolen holiday theme”, didn’t you? The tree? Pagan. The date? Winter solstice mothafuckers. Santa? Made up by CocaCola from, guess who, a pagan deity. Anyway, do you really think that jebus was born on Dec 25th?

Why are there so many people that want to make a big deal about having a cross up! At least there isnt Jesus too. There have been more wars about religion then anything else. Why do so many people make it there life long goal to argue or kill people over where they go after they die!!!! It is Frankenmuths heritage and even if the cross has to be moved to private property it isnt a big deal. The people who founded Frankenmuth were very Brave and love God and Jesus. They were missionaries who lived with the indians. Our children are the 7th generation to live at our home in Frankenmuth.  Our family shared land with the indians! There was still 1 indian living in our woods until 1966. When the indians didnt have food they would come to the house and my great grandpa would give them food. When you drive down the country roads remember that at one time there were only tree’s. These people from Germany had to dig up one tree stump at a time to make fields. This town isn’t trying to make other religions feel unwelcome. Or cross over the law between Church and state. We welcome everyone with loving arms, that is what God wants us to do. But, we also want to keep our heritage. Unfortunatly for most people that is hard to understand. The Cross is a symbol of where we came from. It might mean something else to you but that isnt our fault!  

There are no Christian towns in the U.S. They are forbidden by the Constitution. There are only towns that have lots of Christians living in them. Big difference.

This town is in America, and I have an absolute right not to be assaulted by any public support or endorsement of religion when I’m there. Simply avoiding the town is not something I should be required to do. It is the legal responsibility of town to be secular.

“The people who founded Frankenmuth were very Brave and love God and Jesus. They were missionaries who lived with the indians.”

Yeah, they came to exterminate an entire culture, how DARE those vile atheists to question the emplacement of the torture device.

Over the 1810s, the indigenous Ojibwa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi tribes increasingly decided to oppose white settlement and sided with the British against the U.S. government.After their defeat in the War of 1812, the tribes were forced to sell all of their land claims to the US federal government by the Treaty of Saginaw and the Treaty of Chicago. After the war, the government built forts in some of the northwest territory, such as at Sault Ste. Marie. In the 1820s the US government assigned Indian agents to work with the tribes, including arranging land cessions and relocation. They forced most of the Native Americans to relocate from Michigan to Indian reservations further west.
If you are dont know what you are talking about you should stop talking!!! Frankenmuth was settled in 1854!!! The indians that were still living on the land in 1854 were no troubles. They lived there lives in the woods and my family lived on the farm. LIKE I SAID!!! If they needed food they would come to the house. Other then that they never really saw them.

When I was a young child, older members of my family told me about the tragedy of the civil war.  Seems some slave owners were bad, but many slave owners were good and kind, and after the Civil War all those slaves who had had good matahs had to go live on their own with no one to care fore them.

It being in public VIEW is not the issue.  I see crosses on churches all the time when I walk down the PUBLIC sidewalk.  And I often drive by a PRIVATE CHRISTian bookstore that has crosses in plain view.  And nobody cares.

What I don’t expect is for OUR government to be endorsing a religion.  A cross on PUBLIC property (nothing to do with view) does that.  I suspect you would complain about a town putting up a monument to the five pillars of Islam.  Different poison, same result.

After their defeat in the War of 1812, the tribes

Well, ‘lost’ depends on who you’re talking to, and exactly what you’re talking about.  For the most part the US ‘lost’ that war.  Although even Natives on the ‘winning’ side lost their sovereignty in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyMFtn1mIs0

 This is unbelievable. All of you people that say that this cross is illegal can go fall in a deep hole. We have freedom of religion and this town of mine can do whatever we want. If you think that the citizens don’t like it that’s another problem… but you guys have probably never even been to Frankenmuth to even know what we here are about. We may be a small town but we will rise above this nonsense, every single citizen will dig deep and prove to everyone that we will keep this. God is obviously on our side. Good luck little tiny “Americans United” Bring it on!

 “We have freedom of religion and this town of mine can do whatever we want.”

You, as an individual yes, you as a town, not so much. I suggets you read that part of your constitution.

“This is unbelievable. All of you people that say that this cross is illegal can go fall in a deep hole.”

What is believable and always a part of your degrading belief system my x-tian friend is the desire for those that don’t proscribe to your dearly held fallicies and illusions should suffer some tragedy or torment.

I have been to Frankenmuth many times and it is a lovely city. But being in Michigan and with the winters you must deal with, I have to ask; Does your
 x-tian smugness keep you warm in the cold dark winters?

The primary founders of the U.S. were mostly deists and atheists, and went out of their way to create a governmental system that is specifically opposed to Christian principles- a system that was voted in by the Christian founders, as well. There is absolutely nothing in our system that is related to Christian principles.

 ummm Declaration of independance?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights”

 So your giving statements from Wikipedia…  maybe you should use a real source for your information next time…

You didn’t even read the article, did you?

It was the only way to get Patrick Henry to stop whining.

I was under the impression that it was freedom OF religion. For some reason our society is confusing freedom OF with freedom FROM. Christians are the most persecuted group in our country in the modern day. The above article is just one more example of it… ” In a dick move designed to intimidate him…” I see no need to call names, especially since St. Lorenz was trying to stand up for their beliefs, the very same thing you are trying to do through this lawsuit, no matter how misguided your attempt.

Freedom OF your religion means necessitates freedom FROM all other religions.  Atheists just have one more religion to be free FROM.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, if you don’t believe in freedom FROM religion, then you have no argument against monuments to the five pillars of Islam on government property.

Rubbish. You are not harassed. For the first time in your life, you have people challenging your beliefs. Most people would see that as healthy. That you see it as persecution simply reveals just how tenuous your beliefs must actually be.

Are you denied employment because of your Christianity? Does it make it unlikely you could ever hold public office? Are you denied building permits? Are you unwelcome at social gatherings? Is your life or liberty at risk because of your religious beliefs?

Persecution my ass!

Peterson…you are pathetic…..You’re proud of “going after”…Such a little person you are and yes God loves even you!

I didn’t say I was proud. I support removing references to gods from money, removing “Under God” from the Pledge, prayer from public meetings, and crosses from public land. In other words, I support the Constitution. The word I’d use is “patriotic”.

Sooo, you won’t be insulted if we move the cross from the West side of the road to the East side?
 

If the cross is moved to private property, and no preferential zoning changes are made just to accommodate it, what’s the problem? There are millions of crosses on private property all over the country, and they generate no dissent and no controversy. Because they’re don’t violate any Constitutional constraints.

You make the mistake of assuming this is about a cross. It isn’t. It’s about government endorsement of a religious viewpoint.

Internet insults are free.  Real arguments are rare.

Of course not.  Unless (speaking generally) the town provides the mayor with an official residence for the duration of her/his time in office, like a Governor’s Mansion.

So if the city sells the 5 foot by 5 foot parcel of land to the mayor that this cross is on everything would be fine.

The gift giving? Roman Saturnalia, where people gave gifts to each other. (As opposed to leaving offerings for a deity.) The parades? Saturnalia. Good thing all these gods were born on or around the solstice, huh?

Probably not.  The court would have to take a number of things into consideration, such as the legality of the city selling a tiny parcel like that with the obvious purpose of preserving a religious symbol.  Would they sell someone else a 5’x5′ parcel to erect a Star of David?  Is the move just a way to circumvent the letter but not the spirit of the law?

If the city sold the entire park to a private entity to make it a private park, or an apartment complex or something, and they want to keep the cross, that’s probably legal.

The Mojave Cross case was working on some of these issues, until some idiot stole the cross.

You are not “required” to avoid it.  You have a choice.  A choice, is why the German settlers came here and founded their churches.  Remember, many of the founding fatherscame from parts of the world not blessed with freedom for all.

Believe me, I plan on avoiding it. It doesn’t sound like the sort of place I’d be interested in. I’ve certainly spent enough time in Bavaria to know that the town in no way represents Germany!

Even if I never set foot in the town or see the cross with my own eyes, it remains an offense against the Constitution, and therefore against me, so I support AU in their efforts to see it removed from public property.

He is not required to do so. It is purely the choice of the individual. If a Muslim were elected President, he could choose to take the oath on a Qur’an. The oath of office contains no reference to any god.

In fact, the President is not even required to take an oath, but can make an affirmation instead… and some have.

The town is welcome to be a Christian community. They just can’t be a Christian town in any legal sense. The town can’t display a Christian symbol on public property. That is well established law. It has a choice: remove or relocate the cross, or lose a lawsuit. Because it will lose, and that loss will end up costing it a lot of money.

Since the private citizens decision to display crosses on their private propery is decribed as a “dick move” – I am skeptical. The assumption that it was done as a move to intimidate anyone as opposed to exercise the same constitutional rights you love is pretty interesting.

But they would apparently refer to his putting the cross up as a “dick move” and assume it was done to intimidate somebody.

Perhaps if New Orleans had a pubplicly funded museum that contained a display involving voodoo?  While some might object that public funds should not be spent “promoting” that religion the argument could be made that it is so tied into the culture that it would be ridiculous not to recognize it?

You go after pathetic little towns because they do not have the funds to fight.  Have you been
to Washington DC and toured the memorials, the capitol, the other
buildings that are full of religious references in their architecture?
It seems that if you really wanted to oppose the endorsement of
religion by a government agency they would start at the heart an not in
some out of the way town in Michigan. But then again Washington DC has much deeper pockets huh?

I find what is written on currency to be offensive. I black it out with a Sharpie on my paper money. I’m optimistic that as more people in the country move away from religion, this unpleasant motto, which stands in opposition to the principles our country was founded on, will be eliminated. It was only added to coins during a bout of religious fervor around the Civil War, and wasn’t made the official motto of the U.S. until the Red Scare in the 1950s. A very immature move, and highly disrespectful of the much better motto, E pluribus unum.

There are some First Amendment violations in D.C. that have been challenged in court, or are currently being challenged.

Originally our money didn’t have that phrase on it.

Violation is a violation. No government endorsement of religion, so no towns are christian.

It doesn’t matter how long the cross has been up. Violating the law is still violating the law. If the cross is on private property then there is no issue. It can’t be on public property because that would be government endorsement of religion.

This makes me sick. If you don’t like the cross stay away. Seriously it is ppl like you that make religious freedom not ao free anymore. Don’t you have any tea party conventions to boycott?

 The point I am trying to make is that if people really wanted to change the way things are done they would go the source and change it there first.  Going to an out of the way town that is not on the national radar, to fix this problem, is like putting a bucket under a leak in the roof…you’d fix the roof to stop the leak, not just hope it will go away because you put a bucket under it.

I am not sure why you keep going back to the founding fathers regarding this case against the city of Frankenmuth.  The original constitution and bill of rights did not extend beyond the federal government.  It wasn’t until after the adoption of the 14th amendment and it’s Due Process Claus, did the Supreme Court make the decision that the Bill of Rights should extend to States and Cities.  And that was almost 100 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified.  That’s the thing about the Constitution, it is a living document that we are capable of changing to cover things that the founding fathers might not have had to think of.  So saying that the founding fathers were against any government agency from associating itself with religion is wrong, they only specified federal agencies, it was a group of supreme court judges that made the decision to extend those restrictions to the state and local governments based off of an amendment added after the founding fathers were gone.

….”which stands in opposition to the principles our country was founded on”
  Your history knowledge is lacking some.  Never never never will you see that motto taken off our currency or “under God” taken out of the Pledge Of Allegiance or the mentioning of a creator 4 times taken out of the Declaration Of Independence.
 If that ever happened, there would be a civil disturbance like no other.
 The Founding Fathers would be livid if they heard you say that. They’re probably turning in their graves right now.

Read my above post.

Hey did I use the word there or their in the right in the above posts?

Well said Sue, Jodie and others who get it.

Tell it to Francis Collins.

Well said!!

Survey says!!  X wrong answer.

Theists won’t because it is freedom of religion. Non-theists will because you all think it is an endorsement of religion.

Teach whose theories in public schools?

As I said, a government would not be in violation of the First Amendment if it put up or sponsored a Darwin fish, if the intent was to legitimately honor Darwin. If they did it to take a position in favor of atheism, they would be in violation. Not because it endorses any “religious tenets”, since atheism has none, but because it takes a position with respect to religion in general.

People came to this country to escape the religious oppression of their own country and start their own oppression. There was precious little religious freedom in the early colonies!

It was when we became a nation, when great thinkers (mostly non-Christian) constructed our system of government, that we truly got religious freedom.

It is not strictly illegal to deface money; illegality depends on an intent to commit fraud, or damage that prevents a bank from reissuing the bill… neither of which apply here. People write on money all the time, and nobody gets prosecuted.

That said, if it were made illegal, I’d have no moral problem breaking that law, and would continue to black out the obscene motto.

That’s the problem, it should be defined by the constitution not interpretations.

 Some things simply can’t be argued

 I believe as a city we can make any zoning changes we chose.

 This reply is showing me what I already knew- that you have not lived as a Christian. My husband lost his job for practicing his Christian faith. Unwelcome at social gatherings because of our faith? Absolutely. We have had people refuse to come to parties because they knew we were Christians and were going to be there (yes, we were told this was the reason) and also were not invited to other gatherings because of our faith. And that is just me and my husband in a small town in Michigan.  Don’t even get me started on what is happening to the CEO of Chik-Fil-A simply because he stated marriage he believes marriage is between one man and one woman.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/colleen-carroll-campbell/colleen-carroll-campbell-so-much-for-tolerance/article_d7d1b8b7-97c4-5b6e-83be-c96a22757f25.html?fb_ref=.UBrk6XusdSY.like&fb_source=home_multiline

Persecuted based on his beliefs? There is no other way to describe it.

I also find it interesting that you feel the need to comment on the strength of my faith. I know that it is a commonly held belief that Christians don’t know much about what they believe or believe just because their parents taught them to. It may make certain people feel more comfortable to believe this. I however have studied in depth the Christian
faith, so my beliefs are by no means tenuous. And they have been made stronger
and stronger as I have battled cancer. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt where
I will be for eternity and am just trying to get as many people to be able to experience
the peace I have. My husband, a former atheist, now pastor, has studied all religions
at great length. I
would hardly call our beliefs “tenuous”.

From your posts it seems that you (and many of the others on this site) view Christians as ignorant or uninformed people who blindly hold on to beliefs they know little about. Is that fair to say? I have told you why I don’t see this to be the case at all. Now I will admit that I have viewed Atheists in the past as angry, bitter, disrespectful people who view atheism as the only intelligent viewpoint and are unwilling or unable to even consider other viewpoints as intellectually valid. I would  be interested for you to point out a post to me that proves my stereotype to be incorrect.

 would hardly call our faith “tenuous”. And contrary to popular
belief, we are highly educated people.

I have lots of Christian family, friends and co-workers, and we get alongfabulously.  And none of us harass the otherwith our theistic position.  I don’t hide my atheism, but when I’m not commenting on a blog, I keep it to myself unless there’s someone else brings it up.

Since I don’t know you, I obviously can’t know the details of your examples.  But basedon my own experiences with Christians,both good and bad, I have to wonder what the otherside of the story is.

Perhaps we’ll find out.  I don’t agree, and I base that on the history of Church/State SCOTUS cases. 

In particular, the cross will have to pass all three parts of the ‘Lemon’ test.  I think the big problem for the town will be demonstrating a secular purpose for the cross.  Given then mayor Elmer Simon’s statement in the article, that’s going to be tough.

However, nothing is ever assured, or there would be no need for the SCOTUS.

Yeah, right…

That’s why Americans are so welcoming of Mosques on private property.
And why Jews and Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses never complain about issues of Church/State.

Heck, you do know what the Danbury Baptists were afraid of that caused Jefferson to write to them?  Other Baptists 🙂

Happily that is not the case. A country needs a balance between flexibility and stability in its guiding principles. That’s what our system seeks to provide.

Sorry, the 1984 suit was Lynch v. Donnely Pawtucket R.I. the Supreme Court ruled a creche was constitutional, yet in 1989  County Of Allegheny v. ACLU, the Supreme Court ruled a creche unconstitutional and a menorah constitutional. Please do not insult intelligence by saying this is not an attack on Christians. Why was this heard in the first place, seeing the court ruled as they did in 1984. lets hear the nihilistic responses to this.

Sorry C Peterson, this will easily pass constitutional muster.

Well said dexter, that will never ever happen. They always try small potato towns that are financially strapped and no probable means of appeal

A non-theist with common sense, thank you for the relaxed response.

You are without a doubt a dna defect.

Again the make up of the Supreme Court suggests this will easily pass constitutional muster

 Oh name calling, care to try something “original” for a change? Like some facts based on evidence?

Even if you were to buy the argument that he doesn’t qualify as a “natural born citizen”, he is quite clearly a “citizen” even if he were born in Kenya.  Nobody disputes who is mother was or where she was born.  The only dispute (such as it is) is whether he was born on US soil or not.

In 1892 in the “Trinity Decision” the Supreme court declared “we are a Christian nation” .

Hold onto your ass Rich, I have to agree with you.

Oh sorry, i thought the five rebuttals he got every time he used that “argument” were enough.

You had to have been conceived anally, being as much of an asshole as you are can’t come naturally

This is a big deal why?  There are men and women giving their lives every day so you can make a moral stand on THIS?  The country is spending more and more money then it has, the percentage of single parents living below poverty is on the rise, our elderly can’t afford pills and homes anymore, the list goes on and on.  But oh no, there’s a cross on public property.  For the record the cross is on property owned by the city, and if that city wants to have a cross there, then I think most of us don’t care.  But please, drag a city to court for an expensive lawsuit, make a big fuss, and claim the moral high ground over the symbol of Christianity because you don’t like where it sits.  The rest of us will be sure to live in a way that fits with your life style, unless of course you have nothing on a piece of public property; since nothing is what you believe and I find that UN-constitutional.

 Where, exactly, does the constitution forbid this, you idiot?

Are you a Rhode Islander? I think you are the one who wined about the cross on Pleasant Valley Parkway.

About what? I would say you are the  self conscience one. You haven’t brought anything intelligent  to the table yet other than mockery and sarcasm. I’m very secure with myself. Godspeed to your efforts to bringing nothing to the table but crap.

I think more than anything it will come down to the current makeup of the court.  We can find previous examples that would seem to push it either way, and like this one, most of them are split decisions.

The differences I see between the cross and Lynch v. Donnelly are a) the creche was temporary and b) the creche was part of a larger display that included secular elements.  Or at least that was the argument behind the ruling.Where I disagree strongly with that court is

because the crèche been displayed for 40 years with no problems

 Past history with ‘no problems’ should never be a reason for any legal decision.  They also noted that no money was paid to any church organizations.  That, too, should be irrelevant.  The first amendment doesn’t say anything about finances, and many displays that have been privately donated have been ruled unconstitutional.

People like that are notable for their atheism, because most of them aren’t atheists.  People in prison, and in particular death row, are disproportionately religious.  Granted, probably some of them are just converting to keep from getting harassed by the really religious.