In re: the below

In response to Anonymous:

On the one hand you don't like the reasonable man standard and on the other you ask about a widespread perception of religious establishment. How do you determine if there is this widespread perception without invoking the reasonable man standard? Also, how do you reconcile the wide perception scenario with the relative minority of immigrants who have experienced religious persecution.

In response to both Anonymous & LBG:

There's a difference between "separation of church and state" and state prosecution of religious beliefs. Our country was founded on the ability of individual citizens to stand out in the public square and espouse any beliefs they were willing to stand up for. Individually funded public displays of religious symbols is merely an extension of that freedom. Thus preventing individuals from expressing their freedoms is, in a sense, religious persecution.

There is absolutely no harm is allowing individuals and individual communities to publicly display their particular morals and convictions, as long as they don't do so to the exclusion of all others. Thus communities can put up Menorahs for Hanukkah, nativity scenes for Christmas, and whatever an appropriate display is for Ramadan. They just can't selectively pick and thereby "establish" one religion over another.

As for the court battle question, the reasonable man standard would end people fighting the religion/politics mix that is inevitable when religious people get involved in politics. Religion and religious freedom are part of our national heritage. Dismissing it is a disservice to our heritage and to our children who need to know why the pilgrims came to America and what Thanksgiving is really about.