(whether primary effect advances or inhibits religion is to be assessed according to the standard of a “reasonable observer”). Compare SCSC, 93 F.3d at 626 (O’Scann-lain, J., concurring) (rejecting defendant’s argument that the cross is constitutional because it “stands so remote from any government buildings”). Furthermore, the court concludes that the size of a cross and the number of people who view it are not important for deciding whether a reasonable observer would perceive the cross located on federal land as governmental endorsement or disapproval of religion. Compare Books, 235 F.3d at 296 (religious symbol that is six feet tall and three-and-a-half feet wide was unconstitutional); American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio v. City of Stow, 29 F.Supp.2d 845, 847 (N.D.Ohio 1998) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the constitutionality of the
holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity holding that the presence of a cross on the city insignia did not violate the establishment clause holding unconstitutional a city seal which was displayed on inter alia official city stationary and letterhead because the upperleft quadrant depicted an open book overlaid with a cross holding that inclusion of cross on government seal violated federal establishment clause holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city