But you have made a distinction which, for you, has constitutional significance. But I am not sure that it is a valid distinction. But assuming, arguendo, that the distinction has some value, there is still the matter of its application. The answer as to the proper classification of a Christmas tree cannot turn on your say-so or mine. So it would seem that my questions remain.
By the way, your examples demonstrate the inaptness of your distinction. There may be a need to make a distinction, but it has to rest on different grounds (and at this point Doug's view becomes very important and powerful). -----Original Message----- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:14 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Christianity as taint Well, I'm happy to hear how various Christians understand the meaning of Christmas trees. For purposes of the constitutional analysis, though, it seems to me not enough that some people view the tree as a religious symbol. Otherwise we'd be paralyzed: After all, I'm pretty sure that some people understand the removal of Christmas items (whether trees or creches) as symbolic of hostility to Christianity, whether or not that's the intention of those who would remove the items. Likewise, that some people see Graeco-Roman religious imagery as a live religious symbol, as opposed to a cultural allusion, surely shouldn't be enough to require that the government never use such imagery (e.g., in a goddess of Justice standing outside courthouses). We could add to the list indefinitely: Consider the Sangro de Cristo Mountains, Santa Fe, Corpus Christi (whether the city or the submarine, about which I'm told there was indeed controversy), Thanksgiving, and the like. That some people see these as live religious symbols ought not, it seems to me, render their use unconstitutional (or even improper). Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Newsom Michael > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:49 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Christianity as taint > > > > With respect, Eugene, doesn't it make sense to find out how > various Christians understand the meaning of Christmas trees > before leaping to a categorical acontextual conclusion as to > its meaning for Christians? > > While I am not sure that I completely agree with Doug on the > question of the display of Christmas trees, surely a possible > basis for Doug's view is that Christmas trees are religious > symbols. If, in fact, that is what they are, or at least > some reasonable number of Christians so believe, then isn't > Doug right, or at least very close to being right? (If I > disagree with Doug, it is because I am still attracted, > perhaps irrationally so, to the notion that the government > can properly express support and appreciation for our various > forms of diversity, including religious diversity. Although > I would be the first to argue that the devil is in the > details, and I might, for prudential reasons, want to be > cautious in approving such expressions.) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:47 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Christianity as taint > > Doug's response assumes, it seems to me, that a > Christmas tree is an issue of religion (as opposed to > abortion, which is treated as not an issue of religion). > Michael (see below) suggests that it is, because there's not > much of a distinction between religious symbols and symbols > associated with religious holidays; but I don't think that's > right: Egg nog, Easter egg hunts, the Easter bunny, and for > that matter the Winter holiday gift-giving tradition in the > U.S. are all associated with religious holidays, but they do > not themselves carry a religious message, or (to use the > modern Establishment Clause test) a message that endorses a > particular religious viewpoint. The Christmas tree, it seems > to me, fits within the same category. > > Finally, Marty asked, near the start of the thread, > "Does any of us 'complain[] about publicly displayed > Christmas trees'?" It seems to me that some recent posts > make clear that the answer is "yes." The complaints are > often quite thoughtfully expressed (as Doug's are), but they > certainly are there. > > 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.
