With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the fact that Defendants removed the cross only after the presence of crosses on other municipal seals had been held to be unconstitutional. See, e.g., Robinson v. City of Edmond, 68 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir.1995); Harris v. City of Zion, 927 F.2d 1401, 1413 (7th Cir.1991); Friedman v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 781 F.2d 777, 778 (10th Cir.1985); see also Murray v. City of Austin, 947 F.2d 147, 163 (5th Cir.1991) (Goldberg, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1219, 112 S.Ct. 3028, 120 L.Ed.2d 899 (1992) (noting that there has been “constant ... judicial disapproval of government use of Christian crosses ... on municipal seals” and pointing out that “[t]he Supreme Court itself has repeatedly disapproved in dicta the governmental display of crosses”). But see Murray, 947 F.2d at 158 (<HOLDING>). We need not adjudge the constitutionality of

A: holding that the endorsing requirement does not violate the establishment clause
B: holding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the presence of a cross in a city park even though the cross was neither erected nor financially maintained by the government
C: holding that the presence of a cross on the city insignia did not violate the establishment clause
D: holding that inclusion of cross on government seal violated federal establishment clause
C.