Nativity scene outside Claremont church portrays Holy Family separated at the border
This college town was long dominated by Quakers. I joined the city council’s weekly public peace vigils when VietNam was hot. The local seminary gained fame by assigning students to rewrite Genesis from the serpent’s POV. I can’t see them banning Xmas.
Well either that or more accurately I am equivocating theoretical situation of a local law that can not stand if challenged beyond the local level but may stand for quote some time to a theoretical lawful ban that would be upheld and express the difference in the US. I just chose to use a local issue in NY to help explain it.
But the point is that if no one in town chooses to celebrate Christmas so no celebration happens, that is NOT an “unwritten ban on Christmas”. At all.
Which is exactly the outcome that they should have come to (although of course the later-posted article shows that virtually every word of this was wrong, anyway). The Constitution doesn’t say “the government isn’t allowed to endorse religion, but it’s OK if they use some thinly veiled technicalities to accomplish the same result.” Since they presumedly wouldn’t have sold this space (and didn’t, actually) except to achieve this result, it’s still an endorsement of religion.
This is easy, folks:
The government is not allowed to interfere with the citizens practice of religion. So towns can’t ban private religious practices (with a few exceptions).
However, they themselves are not supposed to choose/endorse/enforce one religion over another.
The second point can be achieved two ways:
The fact that the screaming militant Christians lose their s–t over both options is the real problem here.
I’m certainly not a militant atheist. I believe in the G-d of Abraham. I feel His presence in my daily life. I wear the mark of His covenant on my flesh. In short, I am a Jew.
I object strongly and loudly to anybody who will listen about overtly Christian displays on government property or paid for by the government. Here in Philly, this time of year the city puts up what they claim are snowflakes on streetlamps. These ‘snowflakes’ have eight arms rather than six. Further, they are obviously radiant crosses. It pisses me off to no end. The airport puts up snowflakes on lamp posts. These have six equidistant arms of equal length and are obviously snowflakes. This pleases me.
I mean, right? I feel like there was a Muppets special that taught me about this dark chapter in New England history.
Unless their sacraments include certain drugs, animal sacrifices, sexual activities, etc. or their practices lead to zoning, accommodation, or safety issues. My sacred right to punish heretics and crucify Santa Clauses will likely be infringed.
I figured if any US town had banned mainstream religious stuff activities, it would have been Rajneeshpuram, but I don’t see that they got around to that in the brief period of incorporation. I do see that some Chinese cities have banned Xmas. Not shopping season, I guess.
Try calling that tree a Winter Solstice tree and wishing everyone you meet a Merry Solstice.
I’m sure there’s a few places in the country doing the first; and I occasionally do the second. But I think you’ll find out very fast that you’d be expressing very much a minority opinion; and that there are a whole lot of people in the USA who will throw a fit.
Sure, there are a number of individual people who do that.
My own family throws a thoroughly mixed-up mishmosh of a celebration (which I cheerfully join in on) that includes a Christmas tree in a house occupied by people who are fairly active members of a synagogue.
But that doesn’t make Christmas a secular thing; any more than the fact that there are probably some people attending Baptist churches who are actually atheists makes the service not religious.
This:
and this:
Seems self-contradictory to me. If there are people celebrating Christmas in a secular manner, then BigT is right: there is a secular Christmas.
The Baptist service is still religious in word and deed. My celebration of Christmas has zero religious elements.
Well, except for the name. 
Krismas, named after Kriss Kringle. 
An individual person or family may be having a secular celebration. The place of the celebration of Christmas in USA society as a whole is not secular.
The fact that there were female doctors in the USA in the 1950’s doesn’t mean that the perception of the society at that time wasn’t that doctors were male; or that that perception had no impact on women, including on those who went to medical school anyway. Does that example help?
My workplaces’ have always had holiday parties and decorations. But I have never worked in a company that was owned by a Christian and I’ve never worked anywhere where the majority of the employees were Christians. Still, I’ve never known anyone to get offended by “Merry Christmas”. And we usually referred to the time off as the holidays. But one year my Israeli boss and his family celebrated Christmas, it was a “gift”to a Christian woman that had married into the family. He was puzzled by the “socks on the fireplace thing”
Corporate Christmas cards have, in New York at least, always been relentless secular. Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings, Peace on Earth. In the old days, before the internet, my boss used to send me out to buy a couple of boxes of holiday greeting cards. And all the non-Merry Christmas cards were in a special section labeled “Suitable for Business” and …surprise, surprise … they cost four times as much as the Merry Christmas cards. Only in New York.
I wish I could find the images of some old corporate Christmas cards from the Trump Organization. Because, if they exist ( most major companies that size send them, but I can see the Trump Organization being too cheap to do so) I bet they say Happy Holidays or Peace and Joy or something else that’s NOT Merry Christmas.
I assume that he must have been sending you to Staples or some other office supply store - because I typically buy the Happy Holidays or Season’s Greetings type cards and have never noticed a price difference in Target/CVS etc.
If someone incorporated a cross into their secular Christmas celebration would you think that the cross was now a secular symbol? I accept and embrace that many people celebrate this time of year without religious connotations, and they may be using symbols in a non-religious manner. But that doesn’t remove the religious origins of those symbols, at least for some people who experienced separation from the mainstream culture under the banner of those symbols.
Over time, they may eventually lose that connection, but I would argue that we haven’t reached that point yet. I don’t think we’ll get there in my lifetime.
Saying that some subset of people doesn’t consider Christmas celebration to be secular is not the same thing as saying that there is no secular Christmas. So long as someone is celebrating a secular Christmas means that secular Christmas exists.
I’ll clarify that this happened in 1984 or so, and the retail options were a little different in general. There WAS no such thing as Staples or Office Max, this predates the concept. And chain drugstores had not transitioned into the kind of general store that they are today. It was either at Woolworths or an independently owned stationery store, I don’t really remember. But I do remember the “Suitable for. Business” sign and the considerably higher prices.
Senegoid’s anecdote regarding the cross real estate mess (post #5) has been discussed already – and I’m surprised the Mount Soledad issue was finally (?) settled only six years ago. I thought the battle was done in the late 1990s. But that was not a ban on Christmas, that was a push-back against Christian icons dominating the landscape – regardless of the time of the year.
In post #6 Senegoid also mentioned the issue of nativity scenes (which are specifically about Christmas) on public property.
Are/were you in San Diego, Senegoid? Both incidents have happened there, though it’s certainly not a small town. Obviously, similar legal battles have taken place all over the country so San Diego isn’t all that special in that regard, but I thought it interesting that we both remember those local news issues.
A situation similar to the one in post #6 occurred in the 1980’s* in San Diego and involved nativity scenes around the Organ Pavilion at Balboa Park – which is definitely maintained by public funds (tax-payer dollars) and nativity scenes definitely don’t represent a diversity of faiths. Since there has been a tremendous diversity of faiths in San Diego for a long long time, authorities and officials couldn’t reasonably argue in the 1980’s that the display was okay because “we’re all Christian so nobody is being excluded.”
The issues at that time were about more than the electric bill; there were questions of why the creches were bought, stored, maintained, and assembled for display using taxpayer funds when organizations that wished to celebrate Diwali, O-Bon, Tanabata, Yule, Chinese New Year, Shavuot, Ramadan, Jashan of Dadvah, or other significant dates or periods at Balboa Park were required to pay for permits and space rentals plus supply their own labor and decorations. That was seen as a favoritism by a governmental agency; violation of part of the first ammendment of the United States Constitution.#
It seems to me the War On Christmas has largely been a fabrication of the Christian Right and was bantered about quite loudly by the Tea Party when it was competing against the Republicans for citizens’ hearts and minds (and money and votes). It just seems to me like the equivalent of a guy in a sleeveless white T-shirt explaining to a cop, “I had to hit her. She said ‘No’ to me.”
–G!
*The weird thing is that, a week before the objections and debates started, I took a girl-whose-heart-I-failed-to-win to that display on the premise of teaching her night photography techniques. She was Jewish but we both thought they were worthy subjects for the lessons. She did, however, point to a couple poorly-constructed versions and joked, “Those are horrible. There oughta be a law against those!” :dubious:
#I remember stumbling across an editorial in a Catholic newspaper around that time. It was several paragraphs explaining “There’s a Reason the First Commandment is the First.” and I remember thinking Yeah, and that’s precisely why the First Ammendment is the First as well!
The first one is entirely plausible. It’s a positive act of the municipal govt to put up holiday displays, be they specifically for Christmas, also for other holidays which fall at a similar time of year,(‘Happy Hannukah’ sign outside our City Hall for example) or explicitly non-religious like ‘Happy Holidays’. Of the passive act of not putting up anything. It’s not ‘preventing’.
The other two options are ‘preventing’ private acts. I could see this flying in court only under the finding that Christmas had become so separated from its religious roots that the ban wasn’t anything to do with suppressing religious expression. Which is not really a plausible argument for banning private Christmas display since anti-Christmas is generally based on the idea that the religious aspects of the holiday represent unfair and obsolete Christian hegemonism in a diverse society. It is about religion IOW, even though everyone realizes Christmas also has a secular side which is arguably bigger than the religious side. The religious side, nativity scenes etc, is what upsets some people, but because the government is sponsoring it.
Which is why I don’t recall hearing anyone propose govt saying private companies or individuals can’t put up Christmas displays (putting social media pressure on companies not to, that’s a lot more likely, but not the same thing as govt doing it). I think just about everyone realizes that wouldn’t be constitutional in the US.
Although, the concept of ‘public accommodation’ wrt to businesses has allowed govt to ban private companies doing various things where a simple ‘it’s their property they can do what they like there’ view would say otherwise. So No 2 is more like just politically very unlikely. No 3 would the pretty unquestionably unconstitutional option.
A town near us tried to do something similar a few years ago.
Halloween was going to be on a Sunday (Heavens to Betsy. Where’s my smelling salts?) So they decreed that trick-or-treating was going to be on Saturday.
We did it on Halloween per tradition. Some people gave us grief about it, but:
A. A town council is not in charge of setting dates for these sort of holidays. They also cannot change the date of Easter, St. Swithins Day, Chinese New Year, etc.
B. The town is near us. We do not live in that town. Their laws have no effect on us. Even if we did live in that town, see A.
C. If you have a problem with Halloween, just ignore it.
D. What about Seventh Day Adventists who would have a problem with it being on Saturday?