[mumps]

If other posting are placed in a manner that is deemed to "endorse religion" as opposed to the context of history (as this case was) then it would still fail the lemon test and be barred.

So basically, somebody could put up the 10 Commandments or the Crucifix, or a portrait of Mohammed Ali (the Islamic hero, not the boxer), claiming some sort of "historical context." Aggrieved parties litigate, and the ensuing dispute goes to court. Well, it will keep the lawyers busy.

[ndt]

"So basically, somebody could put up the 10 Commandments or the Crucifix, or a portrait of Mohammed Ali (the Islamic hero, not the boxer), claiming some sort of "historical context.""

Basically yes. But being overzealous with it would backfire IMHO. The Lemon Test does not ban displays of religious items, but the display of those items must pass the test.

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

The recent case about ID being taught in science class also applied the test. This case was a good example of why I say that being overzealous would back fire. I believe that a strong case could be made that ID could legitimately be covered in classes such as philosophy, world religions or current events. The overzealous attempt to push it into science however backfired with the result of a solid ruling that now specifically bars it.