Justice KENNEDY's reasons for permitting the creche on the Grand Staircase and his condemnation of the Court's reasons for deciding otherwise are unpersuasive.

Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message.

The creche angel's words endorse a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. When viewed in its overall context, the creche display violates the Establishment Clause. Kurtzman, 403 U.S., at 612, 91 S.Ct., at 2111, a 'practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause,' must not, inter alia, 'advance inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect.' Although, in refining the definition of governmental action that unconstitutionally 'advances' religion, the Court's subsequent decisions have variously spoken in terms of 'endorsement,' 'favoritism,' 'preference,' or 'promotion,' the essential principle remains the same: The Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of rel gious belief or from 'making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.' Lynch v. Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III-A, IV, and V, concluding that:ДЎ. Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cases are remanded.ДЁ42 F.2d 655 (CA 3 1988), affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Donnelly, and holding that the creche and the menorah in the present case must be understood as an impermissible governmental endorsement of Christianity and Judaism under Lemon v. The Court of Appeals reversed, distinguishing Lynch v.

1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604, which held that a city's inclusion of a creche in its annual Christmas display in a private park did not violate the Establishment Clause. The District Court denied relief, relying on Lynch v. Respondents, the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and seven local residents, filed suit seeking permanently to enjoin the county from displaying the creche and the city from displaying the menorah on the ground that the displays violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the foot of the tree was a sign bearing the mayor's name and containing text declaring the city's 'salute to liberty.' The menorah is owned by Chabad, a Jewish group, but is stored, erected, and removed each year by the city. Its manger had at its crest an angel bearing a banner proclaiming 'Gloria in Excelsis Deo,' meaning 'Glory to God in the Highest.' The second of the holiday displays in question was an 18-foot Chanukah menorah or candelabrum, which was placed just outside the City-County Building next to the city's 45-foot decorated Christmas tree. The creche was donated by the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic group, and bore a sign to that effect. The first, a creche depicting the Christian Nativity scene, was placed on the Grand Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse, which is the 'main,' 'most beautiful,' and 'most public' part of the courthouse. This litigation concerns the constitutionality of two recurring holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh.

Liberty and union speech central idea