In a challenge to the constitutionality of a monument located on the grounds of a county courthouse, dedicated to a local citizen and containing an open bible, a judgment for plaintiff, an atheist, is affirmed where, applying the objective observer analysis, the monument as a whole had a predominantly religious purpose, and thus ran afoul of the Establishment Clause.
Staley v. Harris County
The monument was installed in the 1950s, but in time went into disrepair. A state judge (John Devine, seriously), who campaigned on a platform of bringing Christianity back to government, decided to fix it up in the 1990s. He "obtained approval from Harris County, and made improvements to the monument, including the new Bible and a red neon light outlining the Bible." The ceremony, appropriate word, "stressed that the Bible was a foundation of the Christian faith" with Judge Devine on board. It is also noteworthy no other similar display with such a clear religious component was present.
Thus, a monument that previous had a mixed message (but one probably acceptable under current constitutional doctrine) was infused with a religious one. The dissent thus accepted it as reasonable to assume that the judge "commandeered the monument for religious purposes," which would logically mean a "reasonable observer" would give it a religious meaning. Of course, the dissent didn't go that route -- to assume this logical point was an "appalling hostility to any hint of religion in public spaces." The majority agreed the monument was originally acceptable, even with the "hint" of religion ... the bible and all.
That's confusing, huh? The dissent added sarcasm ("Principle of Devine Intervention"), agreed with the dissent in McCreary [Scalia], and suggested that it is conclusive that those who supported the display didn't choose to highlight any religious text in the Bible -- as if the Bible itself isn't sectarian. And, of course, reference was made to national monuments with some reference to a deity, as if the bible/ceremony/etc. was directly to point. The dissent might be partially right to be concerned with the idea of a sort of variable display -- one that became unconstitutional because a public official gave it a certain meaning.
All the same, when a judge (symbol of the law) goes out of his way to promote a religious message of this sort, including "highlighting and illuminating the religious portion of the monument, where there had been no such previous focus or emphasis on the Bible," it sends a troubling signal all the same. It might be a close call, but the majority was right. With the new membership of the Supreme Court, who knows, but the message sent by the Ten Commandment cases was that recent religiously motivated displays were problematic, but not older ones where the only issue was some religious component. Justice Breyer, the deciding vote, underlined the point, including the religious divisiveness issue.
Judge Devine was not quite Judge Roy Moore, but the purpose was similar. Honoring public figures might entail some recognition of their religious natures, but a fine line must be drawn. I'm for discretion being the better part of valor. Anyway, live by the sword, die by the sword -- don't be too upset that a display honored by state actors for its religious nature is challenged just for that reason.
Honestly, my suggestion to such communities is to try to have monuments that honor people of various faiths. It simply is troubling to have one monument with a religious component, thus the message sent is that religion is honored by the government. Or, it is the message taken by certain groups to be the one we should honor. In other words, to cite the still alive Lemon test, there is a "primary effect" to promote certain religious faiths. There really is no fully uncontroversial way to do this.
But, having one display with a bible and highlight its religious nature in a rather public way surely isn't the way to go.