My sincerest thanks go to the panelists who recommended the award - for their insight and courage in supporting controversial artwork. Plaintiffs hold to a form of doctrine that espouses the deity of Jesus Christ and regards Christ as the object and center of all religious devotion. They view the public display of the exhibition as an affront to their liberty to practice religion free from governmental entanglement and politically divisive governmental intrusion into the affairs of religion. Plaintiffs further contend that the images convey a message that plaintiffs, as nonadherents to the anti-religious art, are outsiders and not full members of the political community, in contravention of the establishment clause. The plaintiff is entitled to all favorable inferences which may be drawn from those allegations. . . .
Plaintiffs assert standing as both citizens and taxpayers.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has specifically noted that merely asserting spiritual injury under the establishment clause is insufficient to support standing to sue as a citizen. . . . In their Complaint, plaintiffs claim only that they have suffered a spiritual injury and that the exhibition caused offense to their religious sensibilities. Plaintiffs do not, however, allege that they had to confront the exhibition daily, that the exhibition was visible in the course of their normal routine, or that their usual driving or walking routes took them through or past the exhibition. . . . In fact, plaintiffs do not even allege that they have either seen the exhibition or studied the catalogue. . . . Again, plaintiffs' argument is unavailing.