But it does. If it puts up only a Christmas tree, it is saying that's the preferred way (or least an appropriate way) to celebrate Christmas. By its highly prominent behavior, although not by any formal statement of preference, government is siding with the people who would use only a Christmas tree, and more generally, with the people who would secularize the holiday. If it puts up only a Nativity scene, it is siding with the people who would keep the religious meaning front and center. If it puts up both, it is siding with the people who want a mix of both.
Because government celebration of the holiday must take some specific form, then so long as we disagree about the preferred form, whatever form government chooses models the preferences of one faction as against all the alternatives. 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 5:44 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Christianity as taint 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
