Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BRACK, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment (Docs.32, 38). Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1381 (2000) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). This case concerns whether — in Las Cruces, New Mexico — the Establishment Clause allows the display of three Latin crosses on public school property. See U.S. Const, amends. I, XIV. Because the Court finds that Las Cruces’ name is widely understood in the community to mean “the crosses,” and that the Establishment Clause’s strictures are otherwise satisfied, Defendants’ motion is granted as to Plaintiffs claims related to a sculpture and to Las Cruces Public Schools’ Policy # 424, as written. See O’Connor v. Washburn Univ., 416 F.3d 1216, 1231 (10th Cir.2005). Defendants are not, however, entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs remaining claims: the record is inadequately developed. See Soc’y of Separationists v. Pleasant Grove City, 416 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir.2005); Foremaster v. City of St. George, 882 F.2d 1485, 1492 (10th Cir.1989). Plaintiffs motion is denied. 1. Introduction. A. Thé Parties. 1. Plaintiff Weinbaum. Plaintiff Paul F. Weinbaum is a New Mexico resident and taxpayer who lives within the boundaries of the Las Cruces Public Schools (“LCPS”). (Pretrial Order [Doc: 139] 5.) Plaintiff Weinbaum has a child enrolled in a LCPS school. (Id.) 2. Defendants Las Cruces Public Schools, Charles Davis, Leonel Briseno, Gene Gant, John Schweb-ke, and Sharon Wooden. Defendant LCPS is a “governmental entity created by statute” and “governed by a[n] [elected] School Board.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 33] 2; Martinez Aff. ¶ 4.) It is the second largest school district in New Mexico, encompassing, inter loci, the City of Las Cruces. See http://www. lcps.kl2.nm.us/LCPS_Overview/index. shtml. Defendants Davis, Briseno, Gant, Schwebke, and Wooden are Las Cruces School Board Members (“Board Members”) who, together with the LCPS Superintendent, “are responsible for creating and enforcing [LCPS] school policies within the law.” (Answer [Doc. 4] ¶ 7.) Defendant Board Members are sued in their official capacity. Hence, Plaintiff is “effectively suing the Las Cruces School Board in addition to [LCPS].” (Mem. Op. & Order [Doc. 22] 5 (“The Court notes that the Las Cruces School Board is an entity distinct from [LCPS].”).) B. The LCPS Emblem, Sculpture, and Policy # 424. Plaintiff, suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims that Defendants’ use of an emblem, the installation and display of a sculpture, and Defendants’ Policy #424 violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 1. Emblem affixed to LCPS maintenance vehicles. Plaintiffs first claim relates to an emblem affixed to Defendants’ fleet of, approximately thirty five, maintenance vehicles. (Pl.’s Supplemental Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 76] 1; Wilson Dep. 25:1-8 (estimating that LCPS owns “[a] couple hundred vehicles” total).) Defendants submit that the emblem has been used on LCPS maintenance vehicles since the early 1960s. (Pretrial Order [Doc. 139] 6; Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 33] 2 (citing Wilson Dep. 10:1-7).) They maintain that “[t]he origin of the emblem ... is unknown.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 33] 2 (citing Martinez Aff.).) The circular emblem features a sunburst with three “Latin crosses.” (PL’s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 39] Ex. D.) The emblem’s diameter is 12 inches. (Defs.’ Reply PL’s Resp. Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 41] 3 n. 1.) At its center, a blue sunburst is depicted. Inside the sunburst, there is a white circle containing three, centered, blue crosses. The white circle’s diameter is 1.875 inches; the three crosses are not equal in size. (Id.) The largest cross is centered and flanked, on either side, by the two remaining crosses, which are equal in size. Encircling this symbol are two separate blue bands containing text. Immediately surrounding the center symbol is a blue band with thin, white, capital-letter text that reads: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” The first two words appear above the sunburst containing the crosses; the latter two words are situated below. The exterior blue band features larger capital-letter text that reads: “LAS CRUCES PUBLIC SCHOOLS.” Like the arrangement of the “for official use only” text, the exterior band features the words “Las Cruces” above the sunburst containing the crosses and “public schools” below. 2. Sculpture at LCPS Sports Complex. Plaintiffs second claim concerns a sculpture — depicting, inter alia, “three stylized crosses”-that is displayed at the LCPS Regional Sports Complex (“Sports Complex”) in Las Cruces, New Mexico. (PL’s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 39] 3.) The artwork was commissioned following a competitive design competition sponsored by the New Mexico Arts (“NM Arts”) Art in Public Places Program and the LCPS Local Selection Committee (“LSC”). (Id. Ex. L (NM Arts’ Prospectus # 155).) In Prospectus # 155, NM Arts and the LSC solicited proposals for a “three dimensional artwork designed to be placed on or near the exterior wall” of the new Sports Complex. (Id.; Bird Dep. 8:4-16.) The prospectus stated that, in addition to other requirements, submissions should incorporate the theme: “The Pursuit of Excellence.” (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 39] Ex. L (NM Arts’ Prospectus # 155).) Prospectus # 155 noted that the piece of art selected would be situated on or near the “southernmost outer wall” and needed to be “easily seen from a distance of forty feet,” but that the “style of artwork is open.” (Id.) Ultimately, the LSC selected artist Ruth Bird’s sculpture, entitled “Unitas, Fortitu-do, Excellentia,” from among three finalists. (Id. Ex. M (LCPS Press Release of 5/21/03).) Consistent with NM Arts policy, Bird submitted her proposal, along with “her resume and ... slides of her [previous] work.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 33] 4.) Bird’s proposal comported with Prospectus # 155’s specifications and application requirements and explained her submission in some detail. (Bird Aff. Ex. E (Bird Proposal).) NM Arts paid for the sculpture, which was dedicated on May 21, 2003. (Defs.’ Resp. Pl.’s Interrog. # 24 [Doc. 36].) The sculpture features a “hot rolled mild steel” ring — that, in time, has developed a rusty patina — overlaid by three stainless-steel stylized crosses. (Bird Aff. Ex. E (Bird Proposal).) The ring is 5.375 inches wide, has a diameter of 7.5 feet, and is severed in two places: at (approximately) the ten o’clock and two o’clock positions. The bottom portion of the ring is symmetrically inscribed with text that reads, in all-capital letter text, “UNITAS, FORTI-TUDO, EXCELLENTIA.” (Id.) Bird explained that this phrase translates from the Latin to English as “unity, strength, and excellence.” (Id.) Overlaid on the ring are three vertical beams connected by a single horizontal beam. Placed slightly to the right of center, the longest vertical beam is 8.396 feet long. It extends slightly above and slightly below the 7.5 feet-diameter ring. To either side of this beam are two shorter vertical stainless steel beams, which are situated entirely within the circle. The left beam is 4.865 feet long; the bar to the right is 2.458 feet long. The cross beam— measuring 2.885 feet in length — bisects the three vertical beams. All four stainless steel beams are shiny and reflective. Additionally, two explanatory plaques— located adjacent to Tashiro Road — accompany the artwork. Like the sculpture itself, the plaques are equipped with lights (presumably to make them visible after dark). The sculpture is mounted on the exteri- or, south wall of the football stadium. There is no pedestrian access to the sculpture from either the Sports Complex or Tashiro Road, approximately 100 feet away. The sculpture is fenced off so as to prevent pedestrian ingress/egress. Consequently, the thousands of fans who attend Sports Complex events do not have access to the sculpture. The Court and the parties were only able to access the sculpture after securing the assistance of a Sports Complex employee who unlocked the chain-link gate. Tashiro Road is a two-lane roadway, without curbs, gutters, or sidewalk. There is no vehicle pullout to allow for reflective viewing of the sculpture. 3. Policy #424. Plaintiffs third claim is that LCPS Policy # 424, “Religion in the Schools,” violates the Establishment Clause. (Pl.’s Supplemental Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 76] 1.) Policy #424 provides guidance to LCPS employees “on the topic of religion in schools.” (Pretrial Order [Doc. 139] 6.) C. Plaintiffs Emblem, Sculpture, and Policy Claims. 1. Procedural Posture. Plaintiff filed the instant case pro se on September 9, 2003. (Compl.1.) On May 14, 2003 and June 4, 2003, Defendants and Plaintiff filed their respective cross motions for summary judgment. Following a November 15, 2004 pretrial conference, the Court stayed this litigation pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary County, 354 F.3d 438 (6th Cir.2003), cert. granted, 543 U.S. 924, 125 S.Ct. 310, 160 L.Ed.2d 221 (2004). (Order Staying Case [Doc. 62] 1 (explaining that the high court’s anticipated decision might “clarify and refine” Establishment Clause analysis).) The Supreme Court handed down its McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005), decision on June 27, 2005. Following a September 28, 2005 status conference, the Court requested supplemental briefing on McCreary County, as well as its companion case, Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005). 2. Relief Sought. Plaintiff seeks to have: (1) all “three Latin crosses” emblems, as well as all “permanent religious symbols,” removed from LCPS property; (2) Defendants recognize that Latin crosses are “Christian religious symbols in any and all venues”; (3) Defendants “[pjublicly apologize” to Plaintiff for the “religious prejudice exhibited toward them.” (Pretrial Order [Doc. 139] 2-3.) As to the Sports Complex sculpture, Plaintiff requests that taxpayer funds expended on the artwork be reimbursed. (Id. 2.) Regarding Policy # 424, Plaintiff seeks: (1) to have the word “religion” replaced by its plural form, “religions”; (2) development of “written safeguards and checklists” regarding Policy #424 and made available for “public viewing” at each LCPS school; (3) formation of, and inclusion in, a “religious minority-based” citizen committee that would monitor LCPS compliance with Policy # 424; and (4) removal of “all temporary religious symbols” from LCPS property that are not “properly associated” with a LCPS instructor’s lesson plan. (Id. 2-3.) D. Standing. Federal courts “are courts of a limited jurisdiction.” Mires v. United States, No. 05-6186, 2006 WL 3072758, at *2 (10th Cir. Oct. 31, 2006) (quoting Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 8, 1 L.Ed. 718 (1799)). This Court&emdash;com-pelled, “in every case and at every stage of the proceeding, [to] satisfy itself as to its own jurisdiction”&emdash;issued, sua sponte, an Order to Show Cause to clarify Plaintiffs standing to maintain this action. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For the reasons which follow, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has standing to assert these constitutional claims. (Pl.’s Resp. Order to Show Cause [Doc. 141].) Article III limits federal courts’ authority to adjudicate only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. This provision “requires that a litigant have standing to bring a federal claim,” or in layman’s terms, that: “a plaintiff ... establish a personal stake in the outcome.” Foremaster, 882 F.2d at 1487. To have standing to sue, a litigant must evidence “an ‘injury in fact,’ which the Supreme Court has defined as ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’ ” Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082, 1087 (10th Cir.2006) (en banc) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). In the “context of alleged violations of the Establishment Clause”: standing is clearly conferred by non-economic religious values. The Supreme Court requires, however, that plaintiffs alleging non-economic injury must be directly affected by the laws and practices against which their complaints are directed. Allegations of personal contact with a state-sponsored image suffice to demonstrate this kind of direct injury. O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1222-23 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see generally Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997) (noting that “[t]he standing inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring [a particular] suit”). As outlined above, see supra Part I.B., Plaintiff maintains that Defendants’ allegedly “unlawful conduct” caused him “personal injury.” See O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1222. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, “[t]he constant exposure to the typical three Latin crosses found on [LCPS] ... property is a constant reminder to the Plaintiff and his child [a LCPS student] that they are less that [sic] fully accepted in the community and in the schools.” (Pl.’s Resp. Order to Show Cause [Doc. 141] 2 (emphasis added).) He also alleges that the “prolific and constant display of the Latin crosses on public school property,” coupled with the compulsory nature of public education, has “created a fearful environment for the Plaintiff as a parent to educate his child in the religious beliefs of the family.” {Id. 3.) Plaintiff is a resident of Las Cruces and his child is enrolled in a LCPS school. {Id. 5.) Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to establish standing: he has stated a “ ‘personal injury fairly traceable to [Defendants’] ... allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.’ ” O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1222 (emphasis in original) (quoting Raines, 521 U.S. at 818, 117 S.Ct. 2312) (allegations of being “frequently brought into direct and unwelcome contact with the [challenged] statue are sufficient”); Foremaster, 882 F.2d at 1490 (“allegations of direct, personal contact suffices [sic] as non-economic injury.”); see also Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204, 2006 WL 3200864, *9 (10th Cir.2006) (allegations of “abridgement of [plaintiffs’] First Amendment rights” sufficient injury for compensatory damages claim). II. Establishment Clause Jurisprudence. In 1997, Establishment Clause jurisprudence was considered to be in “hopeless disarray,” and “the task of parsing the Supreme Court’s recent Establishment Clause cases [proved] nothing short of Herculean.” Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 551, 565 (10th Cir.1997). What was true in 1997 is no less true in 2006, particularly in light of the 10 separate opinions authored in the McCreary County and Van Orden decisions. See McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2722; Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2854. It is into this murky, turbulent water that this Court must wade. The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” U.S. Const, amend. I. The First Amendment “expresses our Nation’s fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions&emdash;one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring establishment of religion.” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2746 (O’Connor, J., concurring). With the Religion Clauses, the Framers “intended not only to protect the integrity of individual conscience in religious matters, ... but to guard against the civic divisiveness that follows when the Government weighs in on one side of religious debate.” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2742 (Souter, J.) (citing Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-54 & n. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)). The First Amendment was “meant to endure, and to meet ‘exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur.’ ” Id. at 2744 (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 416, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819)). Penned in 1789, the Establishment Clause was “ ‘intended to endure for ages to come.’ ” See id. at 2745 (quoting McCulloch, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 415). It is therefore significant that the Founders “were aware that they were designing a government for a pluralistic nation&emdash;a country in which people of different faiths had to live together.” Jon Meacham, American Gospel 101 (2006). Indeed, at that time, the young nation already boasted considerable “religious diversity,” with “Congregationalists dominating New England, Anglicans down south, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics huddling together in Maryland, [and] Baptists seeking refuge in Rhode Island.” Akil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction 45 (1998). “The First Amendment contains no textual definition of ‘establishment’, and the term is certainly not self-defining.” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2742. Given the competing values underlying the First Amendment and the need to accommodate an evolving society, “an elegant interpretive rule to draw the line in all the multifarious situations is not to be had.” Id. There is “ ‘no simple and clear measure which by precise application can readily and invariably demark the permissible from the impermissible.’ ” Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2868 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) (quoting Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 306, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring)). Indeed, two of the greatest legal minds of our time, Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens, espouse nearly polar-opposite views of the Establishment Clause. Their respective positions illuminate the divisiveness that the provision’s meaning engenders, and demonstrate the issue’s complexity. Justice Scalia rejects the notion that “[r]eligion is to be strictly excluded from the public forum”; he argues that the Establishment Clause permits state “acknowledgment of a single Creator”&emdash;spe-cifically, “the God of monotheism.” See McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2748, 2753 (Scalia, J., dissenting). In support, Justice Scalia cites instances in which early American leaders and official proclamations of the federal government expressed “gratitude to God” in official or public settings. Id. at 2748-49, 2754 (noting that these statements and official acts “show what [the Clause] meant ” to those who crafted it). Justice Scalia believes that, because the Framers and young government openly “favor[ed] religion ... [and] invoked God,” it is clear that the Establishment Clause does not proscribe state endorsement of “the God of monotheism.” Id. at 2753, 2755. The Justice patently rebukes the neutrality principle. See id. at 2750-52. With equal zeal, Justice Stevens maintains that the First Amendment “erect[s] a wall of separation between church and state” and that “government must remain neutral between valid systems of belief.” See Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2875, 2890 (Stevens, J., dissenting). In marked contrast to Justice Scalia, Justice Stevens believes that “the historical record of the preineorporation Establishment Clause is too indeterminate to serve as an interpretive North Star.” Id. at 2888 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“the leaders of [the] founding era” held “widely divergent views” of establishment). The Justice posits that, interpreting the provision’s meaning, requires examining “the Clause’s text and history [and] the broad principles that remain valid today.” Id. at 2888. Hence, in Justice Stevens’ view, “[t]he evil of discriminating today against atheists, ‘polytheists[,] and believers in unconcerned deities,’ ... [is] a direct deseendent of the evil of discriminating among Christian sects.” Id. at 2890 (quoting McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2753 (Scalia, J., dissenting)). Justices Scalia’s and Stevens’ diametrically opposed perspectives on, not only what the Establishment Clause proscribes, but also how to interpret the provision, underscores just how contentious this area of the law remains. Quite plainly, their differing views of history and case law dispel the notion that there are easy answers to be had in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. When defining the contours of the Religious Clauses, the “touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’ ” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2733 (quoting Epperson v. Arkansas, 893 U.S. 97, 104, 89 S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968)). However, adherence to neutrality must be tempered by a mindfulness of the basic purposes of the Clauses; namely, to “ ‘assure the fullest possible scope of religious liberty and tolerance for all’ ... [and] to avoid that divisiveness based upon religion that promotes social conflict, sapping the strength of government and religion alike.” Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2868 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 305, 83 S.Ct. 1560 (Goldberg, J., concurring), and citing Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 717-29, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting)). “Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the ‘understanding, reached ... after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens....’” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2733 (quoting Zel-man, 536 U.S. at 718, 122 S.Ct. 2460 (Breyer, J., dissenting)). “By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government sends the ... message to ... nonadher-ents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2733 (quoting Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309-10, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000)). Unfortunately, neutrality as the constitutional lynchpin is not free of problems. See McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2750 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (discussing why neutrality is a “thoroughly discredited say-so”). Justice Scalia criticizes the inconsistencies inherent in application of neutrality and hypothesizes that the Court’s “genuine ‘good reason’ for occasionally ignoring the neutrality principle ... is the instinct for self-preservation .... the willingness of the people to accept its interpretation of the Constitution as definitive, in preference to the contrary interpretations of the democratically elected branches.” Id. at 2752 (Scalia, J., dissenting). The validity of such criticism is reflected in the current state of our society. Efforts to avoid divisiveness and the trend toward neutrality have led to dilution of religious meaning in the United States. See Patrick M. Garry, Religious Freedom Deserves More than Neutrality: The Constitutional Argument for Nonpreferential Favoritism of Religion, 57 Fla. L.Rev. 1, 6 (2005). “Formal neutrality may indirectly impede the exercise of religious liberty .... [and] severely undermine[ ] the theoretical foundation of American religious liberty by subverting the original theology on which it was grounded.” Daniel O. Conkle, The Path of American Religious Liberty: from the Original Theology to Formal Neutrality and an Uncertain Future, 75 Ind. L.J. 1, 25 (2000). Strict adherence to neutrality squelches the idea that religion is “distinct and distinctly important” to our society. Id. ■ Justice Breyer recognized this flaw when he wrote: [T]he Establishment Clause does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious .... [s]uch absolutism is not only inconsistent with our national traditions, ... but would also tend to promote the land of social conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid. Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2868 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) (internal citations omitted).' Justice Breyer elaborated: [Tjests designed to measure “neutrality” alone are insufficient, both because it is sometimes difficult to determine when a legal rule is ‘neutral,’ and because ‘untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious.’ Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2868-69 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) (quoting Schempp, 374 U.S. at 306, 83 S.Ct. 1560) (Goldberg, J., concurring). Under any theory or application of the First Amendment to a governmental display of a religious symbol, the difficult question is always where to draw the line: “[Tjhere is no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment.” Id. at 2869 (citations omitted). Legal judgment “is not a personal judgment.” Id. The exercise of such judgment “must reflect and remain faithful to the underlying purposes of the Clauses, and it must take account of context and consequences measured in light of those purposes.” Id. At any rate, if anything is clear in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, it is this: “Establishment Clause questions are heavily dependent on the specific context and content of the display.” See O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1222 (citing Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2869 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment)). The inquiry is, necessarily, “fact-intensive.” Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2869 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment). With that in mind, I turn my attention to the facts of this case. III. Context. A. The Christian Cross. The Christian or Latin cross is an immediately recognizable symbol for most of Christianity. Although the cross is depicted in many shapes and sizes, the best-known form is the Latin cross, an equal-armed cross with a longer foot. For Christians, the cross is the most powerful symbol of their faith — the symbolic representation of redemption and of the atoning death of Jesus Christ. For many others, the cross has historically been a powerful symbol as well; sadly and too often it has been a symbol of oppression, persecution, and sometimes death. (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 39] Ex. N (Ltr. from Bishop Ricardo Ramirez to PI.) (“the cross itself, because of historical events such as the Inquisition and the Crusades, are [sic] offensive to certain religious groups”).) On Christmas Day 800, Charlemagne was crowned by Pope Leo III as “the great and peace-bringing Emperor of the Romans.” Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church 97 (1990). In a startling example of differing perspectives, Charlemagne was also known as the “butcher of the Saxons.” Derek Wilson, Charlemagne 199 (2006). In retaliation for resistance to Christianization, Charlemagne had 4,500 men beheaded in one day. Wilson at 46^47. The Crusades (1095-1272) are viewed, by Christians, as noble, inspired efforts to retake the Holy Land. Bokenkotter at 138. Muslims and Jews, on the other hand, view the Crusades as cruel and savage. Id. at 139. During the period of the Spanish Inquisition, Jews were forced to convert to Christianity. James Reston, Jr., Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors, 260-61 (1990). Refusal to convert could result in expulsion, imprisonment, or death. Id. Synagogues were turned over to the royal treasury or converted to Christian Churches. Id. Over 120,000 Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, a region where they had lived and prospered for over 800 years. Id. at 263. Variants of the cross were prominent symbols in Nazi Germany. While the swastika was the most notorious example, Nazi military decorations included the Iron Cross, the Knight’s Cross, and the Grand Cross. Gordon Williamson, The Iron Cross: A History 1813-1957 65-66 (1990). Id. Millions suffered through one of mankind’s darkest hours, at the hands of those proudly wearing crosses. B. The Significance of Three Crosses. The New Testament describes the crucifixion of Jesus. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke indicate that the Romans crucified two criminals along with Jesus at Calvary, one on His right side, and the other on the left. Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32-33. From these passages, the “three crosses” — one Latin cross, slightly taller than the crosses to the right and left of it — have come to symbolize the crucifixion of Jesus along with the two criminals. C. Brief History of Las Cruces. Las Cruces is New Mexico’s second-largest city. It is located in the Rio Grande Valley, forty miles north of El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, and about 300 miles south of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Founded as a village in 1849, Las Cruces incorporated as a town in 1907, and reincorporated as a city in 1946. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 6.) Native Americans occupied the region before the 16th century. Warren A. Beck, New Mexico, A History of Four Centuries 23 (6th ed.1975). From 1527 to 1537, Al-var Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, Alonso del Castillo Maldonando, Andrés Dorantes de Carranca, and the Moor Estevan wandered the Southwest after they were marooned near present-day Galveston, Texas. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 3.) At least six Spanish expeditions followed, propelled by the myth of the Seven Cities of Cibola. Marc Simmons, New Mexico, An Interpretive History 13-14, 35 (Univ. of N.M. Press, 2d ed.1988). None of the members of the early expeditions stayed and settled in the area. Id. at 35. In 1598, Don Juan de Oñate and a group of settlers traveled north from New Spain, and formally declared possession of Nuevo México when they crossed the Rio Grande near present-day El Paso. Beck, supra, at 53; Simmons, supra, at 35. As he continued north along the Rio Grande Valley through present-day New Mexico, Oñate extended the trail known as “El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro,” (“Camino Real”) which translates as “The Royal Road to the Interior Lands.” (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 3-4.) Although the Camino Real passed through the site that would become Las Cruces, permanent settlement of the area was delayed due to lack of reliable water and Native American raids. (Id.) Oñate continued north of present-day Santa Fe, and established the capital of the province at Ohkay Ohwingeh (formerly San Juan Pueblo). Gordon Owen, Las Cruces New Mexico 1849-1999: Multicultural Crossroads (1999); www.gov.state. nm.us/press/2005/dec/121605_01.pdf. Except for the Pueblo Revolt (1680-1692) and the Reconquest (1693-1700), the Spanish ruled Nuevo México until 1821, when Mexico achieved independence from Spain. Owen, supra, 15-18. After the Santa Fe Trail opened in 1821, the Camino Real became known as the Chihuahua Trail. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 4.) In 1848, through the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildalgo, Mexico ceded Nuevo México, and much of the present-day Southwest, to the United States. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 14-15); Owen at 25. In 1849, Pablo Melendres, the mayordomo of Doña Ana, a village about fifteen miles to the north of present-day Las Cruces, asked the United States Army to help relieve overcrowding in his community. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 4.) Lt. Delos Sackett used a rawhide rope to lay out a grid of streets and founded El Ptieblo del Jardín de Las Cruces, which translates as “the City of the Garden of the Crosses.” (Id.) D. Origin of the Name “Las Cruces.” “Las Cruces” is Spanish for “the crosses.” Plaintiff is not willing to concede this translation and suggests that the term “Las Cruces” can also be translated “the crossings.” While some historians have noted this possible ambiguity, Owen, supra, at 31, and it is true that the plural of both cruz (cross) and cruce (crossing) is cruces, the potential for confusion dissipates when the gender of the respective nouns is considered. All nouns in Spanish have either masculine or feminine gender, except for one or two nouns of undecided gender. John Butt & Carmen Benjamin, A New Reference Grammar of Modem Spanish 1 (3d ed.2000). Cruz is a feminine noun, Concise Oxford Spanish Dictionary 175 (2d ed.1998), the plural of which, accompanied by its definite article (which must agree in case and gender with the noun modified) is rendered las cruces, while cruce is a masculine noun, id., the plural of which, accompanied by its definite article, is rendered los cruces. Indeed, if the village had been named for crossroads or crossings, it would have been named Los Graces, and not Las Cruces. Notwithstanding basic linguistics and adding to the uncertainty, one theory on the origin of the name holds that the name “Las Cruces” originated from the intersection of the Chihuahua Trail and the But-terfield Overland Mail Route near Las Cruces. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 4.) However, this theory lacks historical, as well as linguistic, support. (Id.) The But-terfield Overland Mail Route began service through the area in the 1850s. (Id.) In that the Butterfield Trail passed through the area only after the village of El Pueblo del Jardín de Las Cruces was founded, the “the crossroads” translation likely would not have been the source of the name “Las Cruces.” (Id.) The more reliable, and widely held, theory holds that the name, Las Cruces, described groups of crosses placed on graves and the sites of massacres that occurred in the area between 1712 and 1840. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 4.) Several massacres occurred along the Camino Real/Chihuahua Trail near present-day Las Cruces. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 4.) In 1712, a group of colonists traveling north to Santa Fe were attacked by Apaches at their campsite about thirty to forty-five miles north of Paso del Norte (present-day Ciu-dad Juarez). (Id.) Soldiers from Paso del Norte buried the victims and erected crosses over the graves. (Id.) In 1787, a bishop, a priest, two military officers, four trappers, and four choir boys were killed at the site. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 4.) According to Owen, the attack occurred near the Rio Grande and only one boy survived. Owen, supra, at 30. In a report dating from 1830, a caravan of forty people traveling south from Taos were all killed in the area, resulting in a “forest of crosses.” (Id.); Owen, supra, at 31. Another theory held that the brush along the river provided such fine cover for the Apaches that there were several small clusters of crosses, each marking a massacre, scattered around the river bank. Owen, supra, at 31. On February 12, 1847, an eyewitness recorded the following observation in her diary: Yesterday, ' we passed over the spot where a few years since a party of Apaches attacked Gen. Armijo as he returned from the Pass with a party of troops, and killed some fourteen of his men, the graves of whom, marked by a rude cross, are now seen. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 4-5 (quoting Susan Shelby Magoffin, Bourn the Santa Fe Trail and Into Mexico 203 (Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1982)).) The village of El Pueblo del Jardín de Las CPuces was founded two years after the diary entry. This first-hand report is the most compelling evidence of crosses standing in the area that would, shortly, become Las Cruces. During the Spanish colonial and Mexican periods, most travelers and settlers in the area were Catholic and crosses were used to mark graves or locations of massacres. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 5.) The practice of marking graves and the sites of tragedies with crosses remains a common practice in New Mexico to this day. (Id.) The accounts of massacres in the area support the premise that multiple crosses marked the site in 1849, when the village was founded and named. (Id.) While there may be some confusion regarding the origin of the name, there is no dispute of material fact that the name Las Cruces means “The Crosses.” E. Crosses Used as Official Symbols of the Municipality of Las Cruces. Notably, the City of Las Cruces has long used crosses in its official insignia. The earliest documented use of three crosses in an official symbol of Las Cruces consists of a lease agreement between the Town of Las Cruces and Mrs. A.L. Sweet, dated July 28, 1941. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 1.) The Town’s letterhead contained a grouping of three crosses, the one in the middle larger and higher than the others, with the motto, “The City of the Crosses.” (Id.) Before 1946, the Town’s seal was a bunch of grapes. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 2.) On April 16, 1946, the same year that Las Cruces incorporated as a City, the local newspaper reported: “At [Mayor Sam] Klein’s request, the council-elect also gave [City Clerk] Mrs. Jackson authority to order a new seal of the city of Las Cruces to replace the old town seal which consists of a bunch of grapes. The new seal designed by [City Attorney E.G.] Shannon will now show three crosses.” (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 4.) The City seal has contained three crosses to this day. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 3.) Mayor Sam Klein was Jewish. Henry J. Tobias, Jews in New Mexico, (1990). Las Cruces celebrated its centennial in October 1949. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 5.) The cover of a publication concerning the centennial included threé crosses hovering over a depiction of the city skyline against the backdrop of the Organ Mountains. (Id.) The cover also included a flying missile, Tortugas Peak, a plowed field, a conquistador carrying a flag, three friars bearing a cross, a Native American on horseback brandishing a rifle, a farmer wielding a hoe, and a graduate holding a diploma. (Id.) In the 1950s, three interlocking crosses emblazoned the sides of Las Cruces police cars. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 6.) The cover of the City’s 1963-64 Annual Report included several images illustrating city services and a symbol consisting of three crosses surrounded by a sunburst. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 8.) The center cross was slightly taller than the others. (Id.) The cover of the 1965 Annual Report employed a slightly different version of the three-erosses-in-a-sunburst symbol. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Exs. 9, 10.) The version on the 1965 Annual Report is very similar to the symbol currently used by the Las Cruces Public Schools on maintenance vehicles. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 10.) As of 1969, three crosses, with the center cross larger and higher than the others, adorned the outside of city hall. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 7.) Subdivision maps dating from 1972 and 1986 display the three-crosses-in-a-sunburst motif rising over the Organ Mountains. (Hun-ner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 11.) Raymond Garcia, a lieutenant with the Las Cruces Fire Department, previously worked as a purchasing clerk for the City. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 9.) Mr. Garcia recalls that, in 1974, Ray Escalante, Director of Facilities for the City during the early 1970s, asked Mr. Garcia to update a metal sculpture hanging in City Hall. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 9.) The old sculpture depicted three crosses, a yucca plant, a roadrunner, and the Organ Mountains. (Id.) In redesigning the sculpture, Mr. Garcia re-used the three crosses, and added a flaming circle as a tribute to the Johnny Cash song “Ring of Fire.” (Id.) Mr. Garcia describes himself as a former “long-haired, no-religion, Black Sabbath music lover” and insists that he had absolutely no intention to endorse religion when he redesigned the sculpture. (Id.) Bobby De La Rosa, who was employed in the City’s drafting department in the early 1970s, designed a symbol of three crosses encased in a Zia symbol that is used on the sides of Las Cruces police cars. (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 8.) F. Crosses used to identify non-religious entities in Las Cruces. The Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce has used three crosses as a symbol since 1970, (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] Ex. 14), and currently includes three crosses in its logo. See http://www.lascruees.org/. A number of businesses in Las Cruces use three crosses to identify themselves as local enterprises. (E.g., Briseno Dep. 24:4-14 (“[F]or secular organizations such as [LCPS] ... th[e] [three crosses] symbol is used to represent the name of Las Cruces.”); id. 21:17-25 (noting that the meaning of the three crosses symbol “depends on ... in what context the crosses are used”); see also Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 39] Ex. N (Ltr. from Bishop Ricardo Ramirez to PI.) (“The crosses in the area are expressive of the City of Las Cruces and are not meant to promote religion.”).) Lastly, in addition to the emblem and sculpture at issue here, as early as 1919, the annual yearbook at Las Cruces High School was called “The Crosses.” (Hunner Report [Doc. 88] 10, Ex. 13.) IV. Summary Judgment Standard. Summary judgment “should be granted if the evidence submitted shows ‘that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 649 (10th Cir.2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). In applying this standard, a court must “view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court looks to see “ ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642, 649 (10th Cir.2006) (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c)). “A mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party’s position, however, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Grace United Methodist Church, 451 F.3d at 649 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The moving party shoulders “the initial burden to show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Munoz v. St. Mary-Corwin Hosp., 221 F.3d 1160, 1164 (10th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the other party must “identify specific facts that show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” See id. (“party opposing the motion must present sufficient evidence in specific, factual form for a jury to return a verdict in that party’s favor.”). “A fact is material if under the relevant substantive law it is essential to proper disposition of the claim.” Faustin v. City & County of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An otherwise well-taken summary judgment motion is not, however, defeated by the “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties ... the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). V. Lemon and its Limits. The “traditional standard” for Establishment Clause analysis is the three-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., 425 F.3d 1249, 1258-59 (10th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Lemon test provides that “ ‘government action does not violate the Establishment Clause so long as it (1) has a secular purpose, (2) does not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) does not foster an excessive entanglement.’ ” O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1224 (quoting Bauchman, 132 F.3d at 551). Application of the Lemon test has proven contentious. See Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment). Justice Scalia has lamented that selective application of Lemon spawned a “strange Establishment Clause geometry of crooked lines and wavering shapes.” Id. “Acknowledging Lemon’s weaknesses,” Justice O’Connor crafted a concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, that encouraged the Court “to refine the Lemon analysis to focus more on whether government is ‘endorsing’ religion.” Bauchman, 132 F.3d at 551 (citing Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687-94, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984)). Justice O’Connor’s concurrence provided a sound analytical framework for evaluating governmental use of religious symbols. See O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1224; e.g., County of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 595, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (holiday display featuring creche and Chanukah menorah). Under Justice O’Connor’s “endorsement test,” the “ ‘government imper-missibly endorses religion if its conduct has either (1) the purpose or (2) the effect of conveying a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.’ ” O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1224 (quoting Bauchman, 132 F.3d at 551). Both the purpose and effect prongs are analyzed through the eyes of an “objective observer.” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2734; see also O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1228. An objective observer “takes account of the traditional external signs that show up in the ‘text, legislative history, and implementation ... ’ or comparable official act.” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2734 (quoting Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. at 308, 120 S.Ct. 2266). The objective observer is “ ‘presumed to be familiar with the history of the government’s actions and competent to learn what history has to show.’ ” Id. at 2737 (citing Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. at 308, 120 S.Ct. 2266). The plurality opinion in Van Or-den upheld a Ten Commandments display without a discussion of the Lemon factors or the endorsement test. Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2861-64 (Rehnquist, C.J.). However, until the Court overrules Lemon, it remains binding precedent. O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1224. The Tenth Circuit continues to apply the Lemon factors, as modified by the endorsement test, while remaining mindful of the teachings of McCreary County and Van Orden. Id. A. Purpose. Purpose probes “whether the government’s actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion.” O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1224 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts need not, and should not, engage in “judicial psychoanalysis” of the government actors. McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2734 (citation omitted). Rather, the Court is charged with assessing what “official objective” precipitated the challenged action from “readily discoverable fact.” Id. Generally, “provided that the reason is ‘genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective,’ ” courts “accord ‘deference’ to ... clear government statement^] of [ ] actual secular purpose.” Skoros v. City of New York, 437 F.3d 1, 19-20 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2735). When there is no evidence of the original purpose for adopting a practice, the government may propose possible secular justifications for the challenged practice. King v. Richmond Co., 331 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir.2003). While the government “has the obligation to propose a secular justification for the challenged practice_[t]his does not mean ... that the government fails the purpose prong in cases in which there is no available evidence of the original intent for adopting a practice.” Id. B. Effect. Effect considers “whether a reasonable observer aware of the history and context” underlying a particular claim would conclude that it “had the effect of favoring or disfavoring a certain religion.” See id. at 1227-28 (citing Bauchman, 132 F.3d at 551-52). The Court “must consider not only whether the government is actually acting neutrally, but also whether a reasonable observer, reasonably informed as to the relevant circumstances, would perceive the government to be acting neutrally.” Utah Gospel Mission, 425 F.3d at 1260 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A government display or policy has the effect of endorsing religion where it is “fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion through its own activities and influence.” Utah Gospel Mission, 425 F.3d at 1260 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And, notably, the effect prong does not query “whether there is any person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether some people may be offended by the display, or whether some reasonable person might think [the government] endorses religion.” Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 780, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A reasonable observer is, at all times, the lodestar of the effect prong. C. Reasonable Observer. The identity of the “reasonable observer”&emdash;“whose perceptions determine whether the government acts with a purpose and effect that violates the Establishment Clause”&emdash;is, therefore, critical. See Skoros, 437 F.3d at 23; O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1227-28. The Tenth Circuit provided post-McCreary County and Van Orden guidance in O’Connor v. Washburn University. O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1227-31. In O’Connor, the Tenth Circuit considered whether a statue, selected as part of an outdoor art exhibit at a municipal university, disparaged, or “denigrat[ed] the Catholic religion” in violation of the Establishment Clause. See id. at 1225. In analyzing the display, the court did so from the perspective of a reasonable observer with extensive knowledge of the sculpture’s “context and content.” Id. at 1222, 1227-31; accord McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2736-37 (rejecting the notion that the objective observer is “absentminded,” noting “the world is not made brand new every morning”). Indeed, in upholding the artwork’s constitutionality, the Tenth Circuit noted: The reasonable observer of [the sculpture] would ... be aware that the statue was one of thirty outdoor sculptures displayed on the Washburn campus, of which several were located within sight of the challenged display. In addition, the existence of a brochure available in the campus art museum describing and mapping all the statues on campus would make it clear to a reasonable observer that the statues were part of a unified exhibit. The reasonable observer would also be aware that art in previous years had been placed at the location of [the sculpture], and that previous exhibitions had included at least one statue with religious symbolism. O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1228. Hence, this individual is “presumed to be familiar with the history of the government’s actions” and, further, “competent to learn what history has to show.” McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2737 (emphasis added); see O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1228 (the “awareness of this reasonable observer is not limited to ‘the information gleaned simply from viewing the challenged display’ ”) (quoting Wells v. City & County of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1142-43 (10th Cir.2001)). Where, as here, an Establishment Clause challenge arises out of the elementary and primary school context, “special concerns arise in the identification of a reasonable observer.” See Skoros, 437 F.3d at 30; see id. at 31 n. 26 (observing that “the Supreme Court has noted that Establishment Clause analysis can yield different results depending on whether challenged conduct occurs within a public school or in some other setting” (collecting cases)); see, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592-93, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) (distinguishing “mature adults” from “primary and secondary school children” and noting, in the context of school-sponsored religious activities, minors’ impressionability); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed.2d 199 (1980) (implicitly recognizing school students’ impressionability); see generally Amar, supra, at 44-45 (noting that “the incorporation of the establishment clause [sic] first arose in a school case ... and has had its most visible&emdash;if problematic&emdash; impact in public schools” (citing Everson, 330 U.S. at 1, 67 S.Ct. 504)). Plaintiff maintains that the “reasonable observer” for assessing the legality of the challenged practices is a child. (Pl.’s Supplemental Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 76] 7.) However, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs claims arise out of the public schools setting, it is clear that the reasonable observer is an adult. Put simply, “young schoolchildren cannot satisfy the[ ] requirements” of the Supreme Court’s reasonable observer. See Skoros, 437 F.3d at 24; see, e.g., McCreary County, 125 S.Ct. at 2737 (presuming a reasonable observer of keen awareness of a particular display’s history); Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 34-44, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004) (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment) (suggesting, albeit tacitly, that the reasonable observer is an adult, in the context of a primary school Establishment Clause challenge); Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd., 515 U.S. at 780, 115 S.Ct. 2440 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (noting that the “ ‘history and ubiquity’ of a practice is relevant” (citation omitted)); see also Summum v. City of Ogden, 297 F.3d 995, 1010 (10th Cir.2002) (“our consideration of the Lemon factors demands sensitivity to any ‘coercive pressure’ imposed upon the relevant community on account of the challenged policy”); but cf. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. at 308, 120 S.Ct. 2266 (applying the endorsement test through the eyes of “an objective Santa Fe High School student”). Accordingly, the Court casts an adult in this role “who, in taking full account of the policy’s text, history, and implementation, does so mindful that” the challenged practices arise in the primary and secondary public school context. See Skoros, 437 F.3d at 23 (finding school children to be the primary audience for the holiday display at issue); O’Connor, 416 F.3d at 1228 (“reasonable observer” profiled as having broad and significant familiarity with the content and context, including the history and implementation, of the challenged practice). D. Entanglement. Entanglement, “Lemon’s final prong,” mandates “that a challenged governmental action ‘must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ ” Utah Gospel Mission, 425 F.3d at 1261 (emphasis added) (quoting Lemon, 403 U.S. at 613, 91 S.Ct. 2105). Of course, “[t]otal separation between church and state is not possible in an absolute sense.” Id.. Contacts between the government and religion are only impermissible, therefore, if they are so extensive that they have “the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 233, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997). Therein, the court “ ‘must examine the character and purposes of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid that the [government] provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and the religious authority.’ ” Utah Gospel Mission, 425 F.3d at 1261 (quoting Lemon, 403 U.S. at 615, 91 S.Ct. 2105). VI. The Parties’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. A. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs emblem claim. Regarding the sculpture and Policy #424 claims, however, even reading Plaintiffs submissions broadly and with the benefit of all favorable inferences, Defendants’ summary judgment motion is well-taken. Before reaching the merits, the Court is compelled to address a preliminary issue. Defendants claim that the crosses featured on LCPS property — including the maintenance-vehicle emblem and the Sports Complex sculpture — are “not ... religious in nature” because they represent the Las Cruces community’s name and, thus, the crosses carry no religious message. (See, e.g., Defs.’ Resp. Pl.’s Supplemental Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 81] 5.) Defendants’ position is, at best, “disingenuous.” Friedman v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bernalillo County, 781 F.2d 777, 782 (1985) (en banc). The Latin cross — like the Ten Commandments at issue in McCreary and Van Orden — is undeniably religious. Van Or-den, 125 S.Ct. at 2863 (plurality opinion) (Rehnquist, J.) (“Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain.”); accord Friedman, 781 F.2d at 782 (“The religious significance of the cross ... is undisputed.”). Indeed, it is “one of the most sacred of religious symbols.” See Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd., 515 U.S. at 771, 115 S.Ct. 2440 (Thomas, J., concurring).' Clearly, Plaintiff is correct that the three crosses incorporated in the sculpture have “religious significance.” Van Orden, 125 S.Ct. at 2863; accord Robinson, 68 F.3d at 1231 n. 9 (recognizing that “a Latin cross” is “a very familiar religious symbol”). The Court expressly rejects Defendants’ position to the contrary. 1. The Emblem. Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs emblem claim. They contend that the emblem, affixed to Defendants’ public school maintenance vehicles: (1) “has [a] secular purpose”; (2) does not “have a principal or primary effect of advocating or endorsing religion”; and (3) implicates “no excessive entanglement.” (Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. [Doc. 32] 6-8 (emphasis omitted).) Defendants submit that the challenged “three crosses” emblem is used for the secular purpose of identifying its maintenance vehicles as belonging to LCPS. (Defs.’ Supplemental Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. [Doc. 69] 8; Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. [Doc. 32] 6-8.) They explain that the inclusion of three crosses in the emblem’s design is “hardly surprising” since Las Cruces, “translated into English,” means “the crosses” (Defs.’ Supplemental Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. [Doc. 69] 8; see also, e.g., Martinez Dep. 13:16— 17), and that “[t]he use of crosses to represent the city and community of Las Cruces is quite common and well known.” (Schütz Dep. 27:7-17.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ display of the emblem is motivated by an improper religious purpose. First, Plaintiff argues that it is not clear that “Las Cruces” means “the crosses” in Spanish. (See Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 37] 4.) Second, he notes that Defendants have not presented any evidence to “support the hearsay comments provided by depositions of school district employees” regarding the emblem’s origin and history. (Pl.’s Ct.-Ordered Br. [Doc. 116] 5.) Plaintiff avers that, notwithstanding Defendants’ stated purpose, the religious symbolism of the crosses predominates. (Eg., Pl.’s Resp. Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [Doc. 37] 14 (noting similarities between challenged emblem and “similar[]” emblems used by, inter alia, Mesilla Valley Christian School and Las Cruces Catholic School to “denote property” owned by those institutions).) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants purported secular purpose is not genuine, given that LCPS uses multiple emblems. While it continues to identify its máintenance vehicle with the emblem challenged here, it uses another emblem&emdash;that does not feature obviously religious symbols&emdash;on its stationary, official documents, and the main LCPS administration building. (Pl.’s Ct.-Ordered Br. [Doc. 116] 6 & Ex. 2; see Defs.’ Supplemental Resp. Pl.’s Req. Produc. No. 15 [Doc. 25] (purchase order of 9/03/03 for 100 vehicle emblems); Schütz Aff. ¶ 3^1.) Undoubtedly, as a general matter, Defendants’ stated secular purpose&emdash;i.e., identifying their maintenance vehicles as belonging to LCPS-is legitimate. K.g., Friedman, 781 F.2d at 780 n. 3 (declining to “explicitly reject” the defendant’s stated secular pu