[muawiyah]

That's an irrelevant question because in recent cases the government paid for nothing.

The question should be should the government have the privilege of prohibiting religious displays?

[timm22]

That's an irrelevant question because in recent cases the government paid for nothing.

It was just a hypothetical question. I'm not trying to make a point about any of the recent cases.

The question should be should the government have the privilege of prohibiting religious displays?

On private property, the answer would be NO. Although I suppose there could be rare exceptions when the display is a public danger for some reason (i.e. fire hazard).

On government-owned property, I think the government should legitimately be able to prohibit religious displays. However, such restrictions would have to be uniformly enforced.

Whether or not governments must prohibit displays on public property is another question. Generally speaking, if tax dollars are not being used, I would lean towards "no".