Yet it seems to me that when the government puts up a Christmas
tree, or organizes an Easter egg hunt, or provides egg nog at holiday
parties, it doesn't "tak[e] sides in religious controversies" -- at
least any more than it takes sides in religious controversies by
enacting laws related to abortion or other things that people care
religiously about. Precisely because the Christmas tree is not itself a
religious symbol, but simply a symbol associated with a religious
holiday, putting up such a tree is not a religious act, and doesn't take
a stand on any religious question.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Douglas Laycock
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:50 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Christianity as taint
>
>
> There is of course another theory -- not that religion
> must be rooted out of public places, but that what must be
> rooted out is government taking sides in religious controversies.
>
> Religious holidays that have been partially secularized
> are a special case of this problem, and a case that is
> politically impossible to solve. Christmas means a miracle
> of unusual importance -- the Incarnation of God in human form
> -- to serious Christians. It means enormous sales to
> retailers; and a spree of shopping, giving, getting,
> partying, decorating, and/or drinking to many others,
> including both serious and nominal Christians, a fair number
> of adherents of other faiths, and a fair number of
> nonbelievers. Lots of the population would like to get in on
> the party and the fun without having to be bothered with the
> religious stuff.
>
> Which is to say, the proper celebration of Christmas is
> an essentially contested concept. There is a huge cultural
> battle between those who want to preserve its religious
> significance and those who want to minimize it. The
> religious side is not going to win that battle by relying on
> government and WalMart to celebrate Christmas. More
> fundamentally it is impossible for government to celebrate
> Christmas without taking a position in that battle -- without
> modeling the government's way of celebrating Christmas.
> "Secular" symbols like the Christmas tree or colored lights
> model a way of celebrating the holiday just as much as
> Nativity scenes do.
>
> The only pure solution is for government to give people
> the day off, do nothing else, and let the private sector run
> the celebration. But that appears to be politically
> impossible. So we carry on the annual battle over how and
> how much government may celebrate.
>
> Ditto with Thanksgiving, Easter, and all the rest.
> People want to take the day off, overeat, and watch football,
> without any of that religion stuff. Years ago when I said on
> this list that some people still took Thanksgiving as having
> serious religious content, I was hooted down. When I said my
> wife's church had a Thanksgiving Mass that collected food for
> the poor, people seemed to think that was really odd. Such
> reactions are a measure of how much the religious side has
> lost by letting a religious holiday be turned into a cultural
> holiday. Either Thanksgiving is seriously about thanking
> God, or it is using religious forms and symbols (and using
> the idea of thanking God) for secular purposes, thus taking
> the name of the Lord in vain.
>
> Bottom line: Objecting to government offering
> "secular" symbols of religious holidays is not about
> religious taint -- it is about government celebrating a
> religious holiday in any form, and about government taking
> sides on how the religious holiday is properly celebrated.
>
> Douglas Laycock
> University of Texas Law School
> 727 E. Dean Keeton St.
> Austin, TX 78705
> 512-232-1341 (phone)
> 512-471-6988 (fax)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:27 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Christianity as taint
>
> If it [the Christmas tree] is to be excluded, the theory must
> be that anything that is even *associated* with a religious
> holiday (never mind the lack of endorsement, the lack of
> religious purpose, or the lack of religious effect) must be
> cleansed from government speech -- presumably including
> eggnog at holiday parties (clearly historically connected to
> Christmas), lights displays during the winter holidays
> (likewise), Easter egg hunts, the Easter bunny, and for that
> matter any celebration of Thanksgiving (Thanks to whom?).
> Again, if I were a Christian, I would wonder where exactly in
> the Constitution my religion, or religion generally, has been
> made such a pariah that anything associated with it must be
> rooted out of public places.
>
> Eugene
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
