symbolism is located] and are directly affronted by the presence of [this symbolism]” certainly “have more than an abstract interest in seeing that [the government] observes the Constitution.” Saladin, 812 F.2d at 693. Thus, where there is a personal connection between the plaintiff and the challenged display in his or her home community, standing is more likely to lie. The spiritual affront of unwelcome contact with religious symbolism may also be compounded when the display that causes this distress is located within a public facility. Religious displays in public buildings may seem more in the nature of endorsements and may potentially impair the use of the affected facilities by individuals who harbor strong objections to a religious message. See Washegesic, 33 F.3d at 682 (<HOLDING>); Hawley v. City of Cleveland, 773 F.2d 736,
recognizing that picture of jesus christ in public school impaired use of school by students and visitors holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students