displays the painting with nothing to explain its significance or meaning. The court cannot impute complete knowledge of the artist’s theme to the average observer of the painting. See Harris v. City of Zion, 729 F.Supp. 1242, 1250 (N.D.Ill.1990) (refusing to impute knowledge of the city’s history to the average observer in declaring unconstitutional the city’s seal displaying the cross). The court, therefore, finds that an average observer would perceive the central figure in Martin’s painting to . represent the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Were this a case of the Crucifixion standing alone, the inquiry would end here. There is abundant case law holding unconstitutional the prominent display of a cross without any detracting features. See, e.g., City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (<HOLDING>); see also Friedman v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of
recognizing that plaintiffs standing to challenge public display of a cross was accepted in prior lowercourt decision holding that the display of a creche as a part of a public christmas display depicts the historical origins of this traditional event long recognized as a national holiday holding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the presence of a cross in a city park even though the cross was neither erected nor financially maintained by the government holding impermissible the prominent display of a cross on a public building holding that the display of a privately sponsored creche on the staircase of the courthouse violated the establishment clause because the display actually favored sectarian religious expression