If they happen to be taxpayers it would include them also.
You see, you already have a problem This would mean that taxpayers who believe in God vs. taxpayers who don't believe in God are at odds over religious displays.
There's nothing in the constitution that says taxpayers who are anti-god, athiests, or left wingers and who don't like religious displays have the greater right and decisions regarding religious displays or are allowed to prohibit them.
You hit it on the head. When many of these people make comments like, "Its what the people wanted" or "The people voted this", they simply mean "a majority of people who believed a certain way/wanted something", not each and every person. Its a time-tested tradition of denying rights to people because they are in a minority. They refuse to stop using government as a tool to enforce their beliefs. This cuts through the lines of "liberal" or "conservative" for people claiming to be both use the government as their tool of oppression.
Many people here want no one but them, or people with similar beliefs, to have any rights or a say so in where there money goes. They bitch and bitch when people such as Planned Parenthood or the like gets tax money, but scream and yell when an atheist doesn't want his money going to purchase Bibles or to build a monument.
Its sad, and to me, a good example of the hypocracy that started the day the Constitution was signed(and even before). They were talking about "equal rights" and "all men created equal" at the same time enslaving blacks amd denying women certain rights - all the while trying to justify it with some Biblical passage.
As a Buddhist, you may well be out of luck in the Judge’s courtroom.
=====================================
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 10:41 am EDT
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Judge Roy Moore displays a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opens sessions with prayer.
And the judge, a Baptist whose fight to keep religion in his courtroom has inspired a national rally, invites others to pray with him -- as long as they're not Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
They do not acknowledge the God of the holy Bible on which this country was founded," Moore says.
….snip….
"My duty under the Constitution is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God," not the gods of other faiths, Moore said." We are not a nation founded upon the Hindu god or Buddha. continued…..
=====================================
There certainly is no reason the Commandments shouldn’t be displayed in a historical context. The problem here is the judge, not the display. If you search for and read many of his statements, he’s clearly promoting religion. He’s a terrible example to base a Ten Commandments on public grounds case on.