# The secular sanitization of Christmas **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2000, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733 "2000-12-21T18:12:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2000, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733/81 "2000-12-29T03:55:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > Can any group get local government permission to put religious-tinged Christmas decorations up in public places, using their own money? > > I can only assume that they can’t, in that there aren’t any in any such places around here, and there used to be. Then you assume incorrectly. It is a well-established principle of constitutional law that it is equally violative of the First Amendment to prohibit use of public property for private religious purposes if you allow the public property to be used for private secular purposes. This is the “free exercise” portion of the Amendment. Examples include Bible study groups meeting in public high schools during extracirricular periods. (the above was poorly written. I’m just too tired right now to phrase it just so.) **Milo** , I gotta say that, on top of several false assumptions and faulty arguments you have made throughout this thread, you have started out with two false premises. The first is that the prohibition of the use of government money to create Christian religious tableaux equals the “secular sanitization” of Christmas. It, of course, does not. Nothing in the world we evil atheists could do could take away from the religious beliefs that you and your fellow Christians have. The second faulty premise is that we evil atheists want to. We do not. Personally, I love all the trappings of Christmas, religious and secular. My local (and former) parish holds a Christmas pageant every year, which is obviously heavily religious in its theme. I attend and contribute every year. What you keep asserting is some sort of anti-Christian kick is actually part of one of America’s highest ethical and, indeed, moral principles. To wit: religion and religious belief is a matter of personal conscience, to be abridged in no way by the government. The government will not force, cajole, or even encourage any form of religious belief, for to do so would constitute an invasion of the most personal and private of spaces - an American’s relationship with (either) his God or his cosmos. Does America go overboard in this regard? Perhaps. But as Barry Goldwater said: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” Truer words have never been spoken. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2000, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733/82 "2000-12-29T21:37:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Based on these sorts of indications of the original intent of the Founding Fathers and Framers, the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) held that: > > ## quote: > > ## The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.” With the exception of two words, I agree with everything that is said there. Those two words would be “activities or” from the sentence, _"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion._ Taking out those two words would mean governments can’t support a particular religious institution. I wholeheartedly agree with that. Without those two words, the SC’s ruling as written doesn’t prevent local governments from being involved in generally Christian religious-themed decorations in public places. It wouldn’t involve passing any laws that favor a particular religion. It isn’t preventing anyone from attending a church; it isn’t forcing anyone not to. I would argue that they wouldn’t be “teaching or practicing a religion;” merely acknowledging one, and I do make a distinction. And they would not be involved in the affairs of any religious _organizations_, as the display is generalized for all Christian religions, in recognition of their Christian holy day. (Which nary a one of you has yet convinced me it is not a Christian holy day; nor have you convinced me that the secular celebration of Christmas is not merely Americans excercising their freedom; not some restructuring of the Christian holy day that has come to be in the U.S.) ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2000, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733/83 "2000-12-29T22:02:44Z")
_sigh_ It _is_ a Christian holy day, **Milo**. It’s a Christian holy day and so much more. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2000, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733/84 "2000-12-29T22:30:11Z")
> [@](#): > > With the exception of two words, I agree with everything that is said there. Those two words would be “activities or” from the sentence, _"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion._ > > Taking out those two words would mean governments can’t support a particular religious institution. I wholeheartedly agree with that. So, Congress could appropriate tax dollars to pay Joe–just a good, God-fearing individual, not an “institution”–a salary to go door to door and tell all his neighbors the Good News about the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God Incarnate? ---
**Author:** ![DKW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dkw/32/3118_2.png) [@DKW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DKW)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2001, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733/85 "2001-01-01T08:18:07Z")
Why do I keep jumping into these debates. All right, from the top… 1. I’m against public Nativity displays. Not only do they imply enforced worship (although I doubt that it’s ever actually happened), but I find them to be gaudy eyesores. (Kinda like those stupid video game stickers, except a lot bigger.) 2. I really don’t think this is what Jesus would have wanted. There was a _point_ to his oft-cited humble beginning, you know. 3. At the same time, it’s just a once-a-year thing, and there are many, many things about the holiday season that I find infinitely more annoying (like every freaking department store playing nothing but those sappy Christmas songs nonstop), so I’m inclined to not make a big deal. 4. Yes, we’re a Christian nation. We’re also a criminal nation, having the highest percentage of convicts in the industrialized world. It takes all kinds. 5. If my aunt had nuts, she could serve them as appetizers. Oh, wait, you mean _those_ kind of nuts. Never mind. Can we all not make the attempt to get along now? furt - If you’re still here, just want you to know that I actually read your post and agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for the reality check. Wish it’d happen more often. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2001, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733/86 "2001-01-02T22:02:38Z")
Something that I hadn’t even thought of until perusing this thread…San Francisco, possibly the most liberal city on the planet, has a giant menorah in a public park (Union Square), ceremonially lit by the mayor every year. Hmmm… ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2001, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733/87 "2001-01-03T00:32:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsc1953 \* > Something that I hadn’t even thought of until perusing this thread…San Francisco, possibly the most liberal city on the planet, has a giant menorah in a public park (Union Square), ceremonially lit by the mayor every year. Those secular pinko anti-constitutional bastards… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-secular-sanitization-of-christmas/46733.md?page=4)