Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other founding fathers believed that a “wall of separation” should exist between church and state. They therefore created the Establishment Clause of First Amendment, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

The founders intended the clause to protect members of various Protestant sects from discrimination, but also to prevent the abuses of power that occurred in England, where the king or queen was also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, vesting enormous power into a single individual.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) believes the establishment clause means that the Borough of Honesdale should not display a large lighted star on borough-owned land on Irving Cliff during the Christmas season or a large cross at Easter. FFRF has indicated it will initiate legal action if the borough continues to display the icons.
There may be some debate about whether a five-pointed star is actually a religious symbol, although some analysts say it is called the Star of Bethlehem and represents Jesus birth. As to the cross, most people would agree that it is a Christian symbol. 

Federal courts have issued mixed opinions about whether or not religious displays on government property violate the establishment clause, but one recent decision about the display of a 40-foot cross in Maryland gives some indication of the the probable outcome of a lawsuit.

A federal appeals court on October 17 ruled that a large cross situated on a major intersection in Prince George’s county for the last 90 years was unconstitutional. Local families provide the funding for the cross, which was built in 1925, and served as a monument to local men who lost their lives in World War One.

The cross is located on public lands and is now maintained with public funding. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said the cross “has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion.”

The Freedom Forum Institute says that the facts of individual cases are very important in determining whether holiday displays on public property are constitutional, and lays out the details of three cases the courts have ruled on. “In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) the Court held that a city-sponsored crèche in a public park did not violate the establishment clause because the display included other ‘secular’ symbols, such as a teddy bear, dancing elephant, Christmas tree, and Santa Claus house. In Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) the Court found that a Nativity scene in a county courthouse accompanied by a banner that read ‘Gloria in Excelsis Deo’ (‘Glory to God in the Highest’) was unconstitutional because it was ‘indisputably religious,’ rather than secular, in nature. In 1995 in Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, the Court held that a private group of individuals (in this case the Ku Klux Klan) could erect a cross in the Ohio statehouse plaza during the holiday season. In reaching its decision, the Court heavily relied on the fact that the KKK had requested permission to display the cross in the same manner as any other private group was required to do, that the public park had often times been open to the public for various religious activities, and that the KKK expressly disclaimed any government endorsement of the cross with written language on the cross.”

FFRF has been fairly successful in gaining victories over municipalities that won’t remove religious symbols from public view. Two years ago, FFRF asked officials in Lehigh County, PA to remove a cross from the official town seal. The county refused, and FFRF filed a lawsuit. On September 26, Judge Edward Smith ruled in favor of FFRF and against Lehigh County.

In his decision, the judge wrote, “The law as it currently stands, requires that the court rule in favor of the plaintiffs: the inclusion of the cross lacked a secular purpose both when the defendant adopted [and when] the defendant refused to remove the cross from the seal, and a reasonable observer would perceive the seal as endorsing Christianity. Thus, the court will grant the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”

The River Reporter agrees with the people who believe the cross and the star on Irving Cliff are historical symbols more than religious symbols, and borough officials should be able to continue to light them during the two holidays. In forming an opinion on the matter, however, The River Reporter has the luxury of ignoring precedents set by federal courts. If FFRF brings a lawsuit, a federal judge will not have that same luxury.