I tend to agree with this.

First though, there's the question of whether or not the establishment clause even applies to the states to begin with. Justice Thomas briefly mentioned this in his Newdow opinion, and he does raise some good points. The establishment clause originally had 2 main functions:

1. It prevented Congress from interfering with the then existing state establishments

2. It prevented Congress itself from making laws respecting an establishment of religion on a national level

Basically, it left laws concerning religion exclusively with the states themselves and beyond federal cognizance.

Some good examples of just what this clause dealt with can be seen in Madison's veto messages concerning certain establishments as well as his famous detached memoranda essay.

To incorporate the first function through the the 14th doesn't really make any sense, but it could make sense to incorporate the second function. Mainly, a US citizen had an immunity against the federal government making a law establishing a religion(as he had an immunity against the feds making a law prohibiting his free exercise, abridging his free speech, making an unreasonable search, etc...) and through the 14th he now has an immunity against a state government doing likewise. Although,, it could be argued that he also had an immunity against having his state establishment of religion interfered with by Congress or the Federal Courts. Further, it could be argued that he had a privilege of being able to be a citizen of a state with an established religion if he so desired. Incorportaion eliminates those final two possibilities from being realized.

However, the paradox is that the two functions conflict with one another if they are both incorporated. To incoroporate the first function would lead as Thomas stated to a provision that was meant to protect state sovereignty over religion being used to remove said sovereignty completely. There was really no need to incorporate th first function as it already applied to the states. Incoroporating the second function, however, would lead to a direct conflict with the first function.

It would seem that if the stablishment clause is to be incorporated, only one of the two functions can be chosen.

Based on my research the framers of the 14th amendment did discuss the religion clauses, but they appeared to show more concern that the free exercise clause was being violated by the states and therefore a remedy was need, not so much the establishment clause.

There's also the concept that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause are inverse proportions of one another such that any establishment infringes on free exercise and any infringementon free exercise represents an establishment, similar to the rights/powers dichotomy.

In addition, the word used in the 1st amendment is "prohibited" so perhaps laws that affect one's free exercise or infringe upon to some degree without prohibiting it are acceptable. For example in the Smith case, or the Reynolds case, the laws at issue did not prohibit the person from exercising his religion, they limited his ability to to exercise one aspect of it. One can debate whether either law rose to the level of a prohibition as it was commonly understood in 1791. Plenty of laws can limit religious exerice for lack of a better term without prohibiting religious exercise. There is a distinction.

So, with this case the question is whether display of a tree a)prohibits free exercise of religion or b)constitutes an establihsment of religion(if one believes that the establishment clause was in fact incorportaed).

I don't think a mere display of a tree prohibits anyone from freely exercising their religion and I don't really think it can be said to represent an establishment since the tree has just as much claim to being a secular symbol as it does to being a religious one. Unlike say a Creche, a menorah, a sukkah, or other displays that have a clear religious purpose or function. Now if the state put out a Creche or a Sukkah or something like that, there would be a better argument.

Whether or not, under some original understanding, a display of a Christmas tree would be considered as falling under the establishment clause, or as prohibiting free exercise, I think that precedent and usus to use one of Madison's terms counsel against so holding.

Omar Bradley: There are lots of plausible arguments about how the Establishment Clause ought to be interpreted; my post, though, was about what the result would be under the current Supreme Court precedents.

Whaler Fan:

Next time you put links, warn us before linking to a white power site (e.g. National Vanguard).

Ya know, I love this. Christmas trees have no religious symbolism? Have you noticed the first half of their name? Personally, I don't want to see a Manorrah on public property. I don't want to see a Christmas tree. I don't want to see anything. If you want it, put it up in your front yard. Don't use public areas for your religious displays.

Dear Volkh,

"After a Lubavitcher rabbi pointed out that the public display of Christian symbols violated the First Amendment, the right-wing Christmas Warriors flooded him with "hundreds of hate mail messages" that were part of "a surge of anti-Semitism," according to the Anti-Defamation League."


First, to get the story straight from the Rabbi in question, he publicly stated on Bill O'Reilly that he in no way wanted the Christmas trees removed; he merely wanted a Menorah as well. Further, by the Rabbi's own words, he offered to pay for a Menorah himself. The fact that public employees were so traumatized by the thought of a Menorah at the airport that they took the Christmas trees down instead of simply allowing the Rabbi to put up a Menorah is rather astounding and one may draw their own conclusions as to the mentality and intelligence of the people involved in that decision as well as, possibly, their opinion of Jews.

Further complicating the issue is that the Rabbi is an obsevant Jew and because of the Sabbath could neither make nor received phone calls during the initial period of the controversy which led, by his words, to much confusion. He was unable to explain himself until the story was well out of control. Given the Media's inability to get a story straight, this should surprise no one.
Now, as to "right-wing Christmas warriors" may I ask exactly how you know the political leanings of those who e-mailed the Rabbi? I have a good friend in Seattle who e-mailed the city. She is a practising Christian, but is a registered Independent and more often votes Democrat rather than Republican. She was very offended and hardly qualifies as right wing anything. If you were to go onto MoveOn.org, espcially when Lieberman decided to run as an Independent, you would have found truly horrific anti-Semetic comments there as well as on other ultra left wing web sites.

80-85% of this nation is Christian and sometimes they just get tired of being discriminated against and fight back. I believe that is the right of all citizens and fail to understand why you had to demean those upset by this. Of course, there is no excuse for hate e-mail, if that is what is was. I say that as the Anti-Defamation League has been known to be rather over sensitive, at times. However, given human nature, he undoubtably received some hate mail, which is sad, especially as he seems to be such a good man. Also, the story appeared in the Media as you stated above, the Rabbi wanted the trees removed. He did not, but it would lead to many people being upset. There are kooks in every group even lawyers, believe it or not, but anyone can write an e-mail and present themselves anyway they want.

I do think that those who fight against the removal of all Christian and Jewish religious symbols from the landscape of this nation are engaged in a noble cause. I fail to see how labeling those with whom you disagree moves the discussion forward or even is very much different from those who would write hate mail to the poor Rabbi.
After all, does the fact that the Rabbi wanted a Menorah at the airport make him a right-wing Jewish Hanukah warrier? Or is it just a question of whose ox is being gored?

I guess we all can have our own interpretation of a Xmas tree. If it is taken as a symbol, then it must represent something, but that something is open ended. Does it represent Christianity or winter solstice? Take your pick.

Tokyo is an interesting example. It is full of Xmas trees, yet the population is far from Christian. Would anyone claim the Japanese were celebrating Christianity?

Saudi Arabia is another good case. While Christmas is just another day in the Sharia ruled kingdom, there is a great demand for Xmas trees. Enterprising merchants market "seasonal bushes," "winter shrubs," and even "indoor greenery." They do a great business until the religious police sweep through and confiscate anything red or green sold during December. So, are the Muslim Saudis celebrating Christianity?

Christianists play pretty fast and loose with this one. It is a religious symbol, it's not, all at their convienience. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the biz of offering space to one observance and only one observance: if you are going to have an expression space, then it needs to be an open forum, not a single view.

Heh... I stopped reading at "christianist."

Yeah I really don't understand the reasoning linking:

a) no religious displays
b) the Christmas tree isn't a religious display
c) if you put up a Christmas tree, you also have to put up a religious menorah.

The disconnect is rather baffling

Although Christmas is, of course, a christian holiday, I would argue that, at this point, it is almost completely culturally christian rather than religiously christian. Christmas trees were never really very christian - they are pagan religious symbols, as is Santa Claus. Ditto Easter. Eostre is the Nordic goddess of fertility. Her symbols are the hare and the egg. To what extent should we, on first amendment grounds, attempt to exclude holiday symbols from public displays? i would argue that nativity scenes and crosses cross the line from secular to sectarian. Despite some desultory attempts to revive druidism that have little to do with religious motivation, paganism is not a viable sectarian challenge to the first amendment.

Is a Christmas tree Christian? It's not in the Bible, but it is a Christmas tree. You know, with the word "Christ" in it, and used as part of the celebration of the birth of Christ. In most American Christian homes, it is the central physical feature of the Christmas celebration.

It's amazing how much dishonesty (or head-in-the-sand ignorance) people are willing to engage in to try to get away with government-sponsored religious displays.

Put up Christmas trees (or better yet, creches) in your homes and in your businesses. But leave government out of it.

It's amazing how so many people who consider themselves libertarian want government to lead religious celebrations. If there's anyplace government doesn't belong, this is it.

It also seems that the faith of many politically conservative Christians is so fragile that it requires constant validation from the government. How sad.

Christmas is a lot like Mother's Day. It's not primarily a Christian holy day, as much as it is a more recent commercial holiday that has as its object something worthwhile.

A Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol. Indeed, the symbolism is pagan, as Christian missionaries tended to cut down holy trees not make them an altar in each person's house. Many conservative Christians (the kind who were very politically involved, and passionate about their beliefs) prior to this century felt that Christmas was not Christian at all and refused to celebrate it.

It is a cultural symbol that coincides with religious sentiments on occasion. The Christmas religious symbol is the nativity scene, as shown by Christian art for centuries. Christmas trees are a German cultural import that honors whatever it is that Christmas means to the broader culture. That's precisely why these things show up in decidedly non Christian contexts. That's why the equivalent to the menorah isn't a tree but a nativity. The tree represents the holiday, not the holy day.

If you ban the tree then you are basically arguing against it being a national holiday at all.

I'm bothered by people who insist on telling me what my religion is and what my symbols are.

Volokh: "The Christmas tree does not itself have religious meaning..."

Says who? There are non-Christians who find Christmas trees to have religious symbolism. Who gets to decide whether a symbol has religious significance? Only the proponents and purveyors of the symbol? Why not the opponents of the symbol? If my religion teaches me that it's religiously offensive to have a Christmas tree, then a Christmas tree has religious significance.

By the way, I tried to get the rabbi to include a Christmas tree on the bimah, but he wouldn't hear of it. I wonder why?

This is both within the Jewish community -- they run tefillin-mobiles, actively proselytizing to coreligionist [and uncannily picking out the Jews in a crowd] to fulfill the mitzvah that day of laying tefillin -- and without.

One day I was walking down a street in Beverly Hills with 3 male friends, all of whom are Jewish (I'm not, but everyone says I "look Jewish" and my wife is, so I'm pretty good at "passing"). Some guy from Chabad came up to the 4 of us and began asking ME questions about my daily mitzvah. I led him on for a while, with my 3 friends trying hard not to die of laughter on the side.

"Who gets to decide whether a symbol has religious significance? Only the proponents and purveyors of the symbol? Why not the opponents of the symbol?"

You could not possibly be more correct. Let's tick off the short-list of some gross violations.

Anything depicting at any time any of the following: sun, moon, mountains, trees, flowers, birds (definitely the religio-patrioc American eagle), mythical creatures of any abstraction most importantly greco-roman derivations such as the statue of justice adorning so many court rooms, candles, knives, pyramids, obelisks, those temples erected to the mythological memory of past leaders of America littered around the mall in DC, rabbits, dogs, horses, bovines, and best of all: cats.

Then there are all the various funding issues devoted to superstition based outfits and cabinet posts: Weather forecasting (I've found Tarot readings to be far more accurate -- so we might carve out an exception for fortune tellers), most of the EPA, Climate change research, cancer research, HIV research, soup kitchens, Shoah memorials (history is not dispositive of religion), all of the social sciences (who are even less accurate than weather forecasters) and the institutional funding that supports the religious training of social clerics in University.

Thereafter we have all the religiously motivated holidays and down time that can be dispensed of, allowing for greater governmental efficiency and service including, but not limited to: Sundays and Saturdays, and all other supported downtimes.

And speaking of Sunday. We'll have to get on about renaming all those pesky religiously derived names for the days in the week and a goodly number of the month names as well.

The worst part is that there are no small number of people that believe Atheism is a religion itself. And that may just cause a problem since their lack of religious iconography or decoration is a direct protrayal or their beliefs.

So in the end I guess we'll have to ban existence. Which is just as well because the postmen working 7 days a week might make just a bit more... erm, postal.

To those who say that the Christmas tree is religious, since it's connected to Christmas, and government displays of it should therefore be prohibited: So it's unconstitutional for the government to have programs involving the Easter Bunny? Easter egg hunts?

How about government celebrations of Thanksgiving, given that Thanksgiving means giving thanks to God (and given that many people do say grace, which is to say thank God, at the Thanksgiving meal)?

It is simply false to state that a Christmas tree has no religious meaning. It is used to celebrate a Christian holiday, only finds itself used on or around the date of that holiday, and is part of the celebration of that holiday. It's not a meaningless adornment. Contrary arguments are not only wrong but ridiculous: one does not find the tree pulled out, even by Christians, on other days (such as Easter, for instance).

It is also not a secular sign of general holiday cheer. One will not find it used in or around Islamic mosques, nor in synagogues.

It is for that reason that its public use is banned in places such as Saudi Arabia.

The fact that some who are not Christian use or admire it does not change this fact. Atheists may also, on occasion, recite Christian prayers -- their recital makes the prayers no less Christian.

Finally, with regard to other possible defenses of this improper use: Thanksgiving is fine because it does not suggest a particular Christian holiday. Jesus had nothing to do with November 29. He does with regard to Dec. 25.

As to "Thors"-day: this is an ancient name which refers to a deity no one worships in the present day. It raises no issue and certainly not like the tree does.

Constitutional concerns aside, what is the libertarian argument for spending government resources to put up Christmas trees?

Last year, those who fight the "war on Christmas" were upset that Christmas trees were being renamed the more secular "Holiday trees."

As I understand the Seattle aiport's position, the officals had no objection to the menorah qua menorah; they were afraid that once "religious" symbols were allowed in, then they would have to allow all kinds of symbols. Note the recent litigation over whether Wiccans can put their symbol in national cemeteries.

The options right now are:
1. purely secular symbols, which for most include holiday (or Christmas) trees, snowmen and snowwomen, snowflakes;
2. religious symbols, in which case, there cannot be discrimination based on religion.
The right wing public interest law firms take the position that Christian only religious symbols are okay because the majority of Americans are Christian.

Schools are often closed on the High Holy Days in places where there are a significant number of Jews, even when that 'significant number' is still a small percentage of the total.

True, but at least here in LA they don't give that as the reason for the closure. Instead, they call it a "teacher development day" or some such, just to avoid the religion issue. Similarly, every year Spring Break just happens to fall on one side or t'other of Easter.

Prof. Volokh: "To those who say that the Christmas tree is religious, since it's connected to Christmas, and government displays of it should therefore be prohibited: So it's unconstitutional for the government to have programs involving the Easter Bunny? Easter egg hunts?"

Yes. Exactly. It's unconstitutional for the government to have programs involving the Easter Bunny or the Easter Egg hunt.

If "ceremonial deism" and "In God We Trust" on money is constitutional then, Thanksgiving is also constitutional.

Sure, in fact why not declare belief in Jesus as secular, then all the unbelievers aren't practitioners of other religions, they're being unpatriotic. Nothing in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses prohibits patriotism, right?

A few thoughts from a simpleton (or perhaps, a simplfier) on such matters:

1) Based on my reading of the First Amendment and my knowledge of just what the founders meant by "establishment of religion," it seems to me that the whole separation of church and state argument is wrong and has gone off into fantasy land.

2) What ever happened to majoritarianism? Certainly we have to respect minorities' basic human rights, but this is a nation that claims to be something like 80+ percent Christian. Don't the Christians have some say in how things are run, so long as they don't interfere with the minorities?

3) As for minorities being offended or intimidated by the existence of majority sentiments, well, when I walk through Brookline, MA (heavily Jewish), I as a Christian am not offended or intimidated by all the temples, synagogues, bagel shops and kosher food stores, and the Jews don't seem to be offended or intimidated by the fact that my church (The Christian Community) is located in Brookline. It seems to be a small number of paranoid, publicity-seeking victim cult types who raise all these stinks, whatever the issue. Can't we just ignore them and get on with our lives? How the Hell did they manage to get a foot into the courtroom door on these issues?

4) Given the above, I have no problem with government making government space available for religious displays during generally recognized religious/secular holidays. I do have some reservations about using government resources to mount such displays, both from a sensitivity standpoint and from a libertarian point of view on the proper use of tax dollars.

5) It might be pointed out, that while Christmas trees relate to Christianity mainly by their name - it is a pagan custom - the Menorah is certainly a religious symbol, both Jewish and Christian (how many candles are on the altar in your church? Seven, in mine, and for good historical reasons.).

6) Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukkah!

It is also not a secular sign of general holiday cheer. One will not find it used in or around Islamic mosques, nor in synagogues.

Of course. If it were a secular sign of general holiday cheer, I would expect not to find it in those places, either.

The Christmas tree was originally part of a pagan solstice festival, whose symbols were appropriated by a later creed, Christianity. Now, it's happening again -- American secularism has appropriated those same symbols from the Christians. What's so hard to grasp about that?

The Christians can make all the noise they like about "what Christmas really means", but the truth of the matter is that the holiday exists in a secular form alongside the Christian one.

The attempts to "save Christmas" are simply an attempt to fight the secularization of the symbol by declaring a monopoly on its meaning -- that it can only mean their meanings regardless of who uses them. That would be tantamount to English speakers insisting that the English meanings of certain combinations of letters must hold in all speech everywhere, no matter what the actual language in use is. Given that many of the symbols in question originate outside of Christianity, this is disingenuous to say the least.

Symbols (and words) can and do change their meaning over time, with the context of use. Swastikas, for example, were a relatively innocuous symbol for thousands of years, but it's the meaning it took on midway through last century which is dominant now, at least in the West.

So, in the context of property owned by the government of an ostensibly secular, free republic, I'd consider the Christmas tree to be sufficiently secularized to pass First Amendment muster.

If all other religions are suppressed does that not "Establish" Atheism as the state religion?

No more than "No talking in the library" establishes ASL as the national language.

Brooks Lyman (Brooklineman?) draws a parallel between the synagogues, Jewish businesses, etc. (whose existence doesn't offend him) and the government acting in promotion of a particular religion:
It seems to be a small number of paranoid, publicity-seeking victim cult types who raise all these stinks, whatever the issue. Can't we just ignore them and get on with our lives? How the Hell did they manage to get a foot into the courtroom door on these issues?

Nobody is offended by members of the dominant sect practicing their religion in their own churches or private lives?

I suspect the Christmas-tree-is-not-Christian argument comes from Christians who redefined their faith in response to the Lemon test. They lawyered-up their faith in order to convince courts to let the government lead their religious practices.

After all, Religion is the first institution Lenin went after (well, after the Czar) continued by Stalin and all subsequent leaders. Ditto China.

For Christians to think that they are oppressed in an overwhelmingly Christian country that has more religious freedom than any country in history is, well, paranoid.

Davide:
Beware the vengeance of Thor and Father Odin, you unbelieving swine!

People seem to have forgotten that Christmas itself, not just the tree, was considered "not Christian" by many in the past.

And to say that Christmas trees aren't Christian in the 21st Centrury makes as much sense as saying that Christmas isn't Christian. So what if Chistmas trees have been added to the Christmas celebration? They are still part of a Christian holiday.

And no one has been able to give a libertarian justification for spending government resources to celebrate a religious holiday. If anything belongs in the private sector, it's religious celebrations.

Davide:
Try reading what I wrote. I said NO ONE worships Thor in the present day, not simply that the name is "ancient." Billions worship Jesus presently. Thus, there is no valid comparison.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we find 2/3 of the world isn't Christian. How many folks of a given ilk does it take to retain meaning rights to a holiday? At some point Christians took meaning rights from the solstice dancers. Now those rights have been taken back. Perhaps it's the dawning of the age of Aquarius?

However, there is still hope for the Spring Equinox. It is a bit problematic that the Jews laid claim to Passover long before the Christian era, but ecumenism does earn diversity points. The imprtant thing is that the commercial establishment still hasn't revved up to coopt the holiday. There are those pesky fertility dancers prancing naked under the Spring Moon, but who cares about the worshippers of Thor anyway.

Deenk writes:

Christmas trees were never really very christian - they are pagan religious symbols, as is Santa Claus.

So the American flag is not really very American either -- stars and stripes are associated with the British flag, as are the colors red, white, and blue.

I grow tired of the suggestion that Christian symbols are somehow not Christian simply because many of them have pagan (or more often Jewish) antecedents. People who make these kinds of arguments should read the Church Fathers, who were very explict about their project of "baptising" their pagan culture and infusing it with Christian meaning. Much as Americans have done with the traditions they inherited from England....

A few years ago my university banned Christmas trees in public areas of dorms. They were put up by students -- students who were paying money for the use of those public areas. So you could hardly argue against those trees from a libertarian prospective.

When my town doesn't have snowflakes attached to the streetlights they have other things like American flags, advertisements for charitable organizations, or advertisements for the university. If a libertarian is going to argue against decorations on the grounds that governments should not be spending money on holiday decorations, they should be consistent and argue against all other types of advertising and decorations that governments put up throughout the year.

The treatment of holiday symbols is totally ridiculous. I can't have a small tree on my desk in my state university office since it's a religious symbol. Yet the town I grew up in still puts up a nativity scene in the middle of Main Street. They can do this because there's a Menorah off to the side.

How about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? Is he an antlered expression of Christianity? If so, did he become one as soon as Montgomery Ward created him? Or was it when Gene Autry sang about him?

It might be better to approach it from the other side: is a dreidl an expression of Judaism? A religious symbol or a cultural item?

How about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? Is he an antlered expression of Christianity?

There were certain Jewish homes in the 1960s where Charlie Brown[*] Christmas and Rudolph were acceptable, but Little Drummer Boy was over the line. (Frosty was no problem.) Different people may draw their lines differently.

[*]This may have been more based on the Charles Shultz exception (similar to the Chinese restaurant exception) than a deep analysis. Linus' speech from Luke 2:8-12 was my first exposure to Christian theology.

Of course in addition to the line of "what we may bring into this house", the line for "what from the Christian celebrations of their holiday is it acceptable for us to share" is different from the line for "what is neutral, and acceptable for the proper role of government, and what is sectarian and not proper."

Tom Cross writes I'm agnostic, and I celebrate Christmas.
As I wrote earlier, analogies don't always hold. Just as all kosher food is hallal, I can't think of anything in Jewish liturgy or practice that is forbidden to Christians. A Christian is free to eat matzah and hear the story of the exodus. The reverse is not true: A Jew is forbidden to invoke the Trinity. The line isn't clear or bright, but there are some things that are too much like practicing another religion and are thus forbidden to Jews. Tom can do Christmas as much as he wants: there is no Agnosticism that he is denying or violating.

My mother was raised very catholic. Even after she was excommunicated for remarriage she sent us to catholic school and forced us kids to attend mass every Sunday and every Easter and Christmas. In so far as someone in this country can be raised solidly christian, I was.

Never in all those years was I raised to think of the tree, the stockings, or the gifts as anything "christian." We all knew that there were two sides to christmas: 1) a secular American feel-good family holiday with co-opted pagan symbology, and 2) a christian celebration of the birth of Jesus.

Having converted to agnostic in my early 20s, I avoid as much of the christian aspect of the holiday as I can and focus only on the secular part of it. If christians find religous value in what is really a pagan symbol, well, that isn't surprising as much of their belief is mirrored in older pagan religions. But that doesn't mean it is actually "christian" and that my use of it is, like saying the Lord's Prayer, really christian even if I don't mean it to be.

Decorated trees have as much christian religious history and context as chocolate on easter or flowers on valentines day.

I am, however, willing to change my thoughts on this if someone could show more than a casual (cultural) link between the birth of Jesus and a decorated pine tree.

It is more likely that people of deep faith have taken a cultural symbol and wrapped it in religion because, for them, the religious aspect of Christmas is of primary importance. I can accept that, but that doesn't mean everyone else must believe the same as they do.

Taken from: wikipedia

"December 25 was also considered to be the date of the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma.[8] It was therefore the day the Sun proved itself to be "unconquered" despite the shortening of daylight hours. (When Julius Caesar introduced the Julian Calendar in 45 BC, December 25 was approximately the date of the solstice. In modern times, the solstice falls on December 21 or 22.) The Sol Invictus festival has a "strong claim on the responsibility" for the date of Christmas, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.[3] Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus.[13] "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born," Cyprian wrote.[3]"

I know wikipedia is of limited value, but this particular article is well annotated with sources and provides a good starting point.

AC,

Your post, while long, misses the point completely.

No one objects to Church christmas parties. Or anyone else's christmas party, for that matter. And everyone knows non-Christians attend these parties and drink eggnog and what-have-you.

So what?

The issue is: when did these Christian people get the right to shove their Christmas trees in everyone else's face, using public money, in a public square??

I don't see this in the Constitution.

Long historical discourses on the tree's evolution, etc. are quite irrelevant: the issue, again, is: this is a specific, religiously-linked item. To one holiday. A Christian one.

For a supposedly tolerant and happy religion, I don't quite understand the repeated insistence to shove it in everyone's face using public tax dollars. If you like Christmas, fine, celebrate it on your own dime, in your own house. Why that isn't enough is beyond me.

Davide:
Several hundred million Christians live in this country, celebrate Christmas, and recognize the Christmas tree as a symbol of that holiday. Arguing that it's some sort of generic "howdy" is just plain silly -- though, for silliness' sake, it's hard to up any reference to "the age of Aquarius"...

So, it's a numbers game? Good. What percentage of the US population has to be Christian to maintain Christmas as a Christian holiday? How about Japan? Is Christmas a Christian holiday in Japan? They have only a small part of their population that is Christian. Is it OK to say, "Howdy Christmas" in Japan?

AC,

Oh, and as to your dismay about use of the term "shoving," consider the implicit message the government sends when it choose to put up an 88-foot tall tree in the middle of your city and festoon it with your tax dollars, when you neither agree with the use of that tree nor the use of the public fisc in that manner.

Also, note the absence of any other holiday decoration in equivalent size or prominence.

Never in all those years was I raised to think of the tree, the stockings, or the gifts as anything "christian." We all knew that there were two sides to christmas: 1) a secular American feel-good family holiday with co-opted pagan symbology, and 2) a christian celebration of the birth of Jesus.

But I reject this notion that #1 exists. It isn't "American." It's Christian. Because the latter are such a high percentage of the former, it's easy to conflate the two, but they're different.

The fact that some secular Christians celebrate it doesn't make it secular; some secular Jews light a Menorah, too. Hell, half the Reform Jews out there seem to be atheist, but that doesn't mean that going to Friday night services is a "secular" activity.

For what it's worth, I posted, a couple of weeks ago, a short piece that is the seed of a projected longer article on "Christmas." See http://ssrn.com/abstract=947613

It's more like "See, I told you there were anti-Semites out there. You can always find a stick to beat a dog, so don't worry about making waves, but be ever vigilant, and know that whether you accept them imposing their holiday on everybody, or ask for an acknowledgement that theirs is not the only sect, they'll use it to attack you."

The message he heard SeaTac sending was "The Jews are trying to kill our holiday, just like they killed Our Lord."

(Why did the Grinch have garlic in his soul? Why do some people think Ebenezer Scrooge is Jewish?)

There is no multi-holiday season, except that for any date you can find other holidays nearby.

What's a "direct" tie?

Some scholars think Jews learned circumcision from the Egyptians, but the Egyptians aren't here any more, so a brit millah is very Jewish. (If you're circumcised on the 2nd day in the hospital or at age 13, then it's not Jewish -- if you happen to have a Balsam Fir growing in your yard, that's not Christian.)

Eating matzoh and drinking wine -- Christian or Jewish? It depends on the context, seder or communion.

Some customs change (few enough people, Christian or not, consider Halloween to be All Hallow's Eve that it's not a big deal.) But as much as those who would like it to be universal want it to be, Christmas has not become secular. That some non-Christians adopt some Christmas customs that their own belief system doesn't prohibit doesn't make them any less Christian.

What's a "direct" tie?

A failure of my ability to describe what I'm thinking? :-)

I was trying to be generic enough to encompass icons, acts, and beliefs as the source of the religious ceremony, icon, or act. As an example, the source of the menorah appears to have a tradition in ancient jewish temples. Can some similar thing be said of the Christmas tree? If so, it isn't universal enough knowledge to be taught in church, Catholic school, or in the Bible. I don't discount that such a "tie" may exist--I'm just unaware of one. Perhaps you are and will share it?

When is a tradition of a predominantly Christian culture a religious tradition or just a cultural tradition? How do you tell the two apart?

I'll be attending a friend's Yule ceremony this week. It's his religious celebration for the season. There are a variety of religious and cultural celebrations around the Solstice that aren't Christian. Hence "multi-holiday season."

That some non-Christians adopt some Christmas customs that their own belief system doesn't prohibit doesn't make them any less Christian.

The reverse: That some non-pagans adopt some pagan customs that their own belief system doesn't prohibit doesn't make them any less pagan.

Yule logs and evergreens have a long history outside of christian religious tradition. I just don't see how Christians can now claim them as their exclusive religious practice.

For better or worse, if that tree happened to be in a Jewish home, the answer might be "It's a Chanukah Bush. No really. We don't have any Christmas Trees in this house, no sirree. No Christmas here, this is a Jewish house."

David M. Nieporent:
For one thing, because there aren't any pagans around anymore.

What is a pagan? How do we identify one?