Freedom of Religion

[HolyShadow]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I would like to have a conversation about the US's 'freedom of religion'. Specifically, do you think that it is legal for a religious display of one specific religion (such as Christianity) to be present in a publicly-owned place, such as a park, according to the first amendment to the constitution? Why?

[Spoofs3]

I didn't really think this was that big of a debate =/
Legally? Absolutely... I would have tought the second sentence "Or prohibiting the free excercise thereof" would allow religious displays, especially in publically owned places...
I would imagine that applies to all religions.
In fact, I would think this debate would apply more to Atheists and smaller religions. Why do I state that? Well, despite my historical belief that the Founders weren't that religious themselves, the sentence claims "No law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Thus, it gets more complicated. This is because Congress can decide what an "Establishment of Religion" is. This would usually cut out many smaller religions, and the idea of State recognised religions comes into play.
Equally, outside smaller religions, since Atheism can be seen as a lack of establishment of religion, and as a lack of religion itself, it can also be discriminated against legally.

While I do not feel that is right in any sense, the question was about legality, and that is my opinion of what can occur with the wording.
But also, keep in mind that I am not a law student, thus I may be completely wrong on how lawyers feel on the situation.