Gadarene - You’re the one fixated on Christmas trees; not I. Whatever its origins (which I have already acknowledged are pagan), a Christmas tree is now associated with Christmas. (Imagine that?) Did you ever look up the etymology of the word “Christmas,” BTW?
Be insulting if it makes you feel better. I was being honest, and I didn’t at all misinterpret the reaction throughout the course of this thread.
I said:
That’s a misrepresentation, huh?
Read better. Pay less attention whether you can have a circle of pals to backslap with and congratulate one another on having the “right opinion,” with statements such as, “We are not impressed,” and work on comprehension. Just suggestions.
BTW, The Supreme Court has weighed in on this very specific issue, of religious-themed Christmas decorations in public places? Got a case? A majority opinion?
You wanna talk Framers? I gave you quotes that were pretty damn Christian from some of the Framers. Do I deny that other Framers wanted less Christian specificity? No; I do not. You’re apparently one of the ones being willful about this secular consensus you perceive from 225 years ago.
Pecular Pixie- You may want to check out that link I provided earlier, with regard to the Christmas holiday in America. Christmas has been celebrated as a family-oriented, peaceful Christian holiday in various places in the U.S. since the early 1800s, spread in that fashion in the mid-1800s, and was almost universally celebrated in that fashion by the late 1800s.
Am I denying that a parallel, secular observance of the holiday has developed? No, I am not. Are you (and several others) stubbornly denying that the secular aspect has developed as an offshoot of the Christian celebration that evolved in the U.S. during the 19th Century? Yes, you are.
Milo, please let me know which of the following statements best characterizes your opinion:
A) Government on all levels should be able to spend public money on public presentations including religious material from any and all religions in December. This includes creches, menorahs, and what have you.
B) Government on all levels should be able to spend public money on public presentations concerning a Christianity-specific religion. This includes Santa, Christmas trees, and creches.
C) Government on all levels should be limited to spending public money on public presentations containing only nonreligious symbols such as Christmas trees, although it should be noted that they are still associated with a Christianity-specific holiday.
D) Government on all levels should be limited to spending public money on public presentations containing only nonreligious symbols such as Christmas trees, specifically because they are nonreligious but seasonal.
At various points in the thread, you have argued all four of this positions. I’d like you to nail one down, here, if you would.
pl, I don’t feel that I have argued all four. But if you feel I have, then I should try to clarify.
These are the points I was trying to make:
Point 1: I feel that nonspecific but Christian religious depictions in public places (nativity scenes, angels, Stars depicted as like the traditional “Star of Bethlehem,” etc.) are not a particularly heinous thing. That’s my opinion. I further posit that, since 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as being Christian, a vast majority of them (which would mean, therefore, a vast majority of American society) probably feels the same way I do.
Further, because society at its local levels of government typically spends public money on public displays that makes the majority of its citizenry happy, it strikes me as odd that the interjection of even nonspecific religion in doing so causes vehement opposition, as though it is somehow a denegration of other religions (or no religion) by which the minority are represented.
Point 2: While I don’t doubt that court interpretation over the years has brought us to where we are, I maintain that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as written, has nothing to do with public expenditures of a nonspecific but Christian nature.
If people want to take comfort in defending their stance with, “That’s the way the law’s been interpreted, so that’s that,” they may feel free to do so. I, however, feel the Constitution has been overinterpreted in this case.
Point 3: The overinterpretation (IMO) of the Constitution has led some, apparently, to take the ball and run with it. Leading to the ridiculous attempts to get rid of innocuous Christmas-related decoration such as lighted-up trees and the singing of “Jingle Bells” at schools.
All seem to be in agreement that this is an overstep.
Point 4: I maintain that Christmas, as it has evolved in the United States since the 1800s, is a Christian holiday. It may have a parallel, secular component that has developed to it, but the fact that it is evolving out of a holiday called “Christmas” should make it self-evident that it is an offshoot from a Christian holiday.
I further submit that public Christmas displays as recently as the 1980s were most certainly celebrating the Christian aspects of Christmas, with a nod to the secular as well.
Point 5: Because of Point 4, and following the argument of many that the Christ had to be taken out of Christmas because “the law is the law,” I believe that, using your own argument, any recognition of the end of December holidays should be wrong, as Christmas and Hanukkah are certainly religious holidays.
Anyone who claims that local governments are referring to Winter Solstice and New Year’s Eve only when they display the sentiment “Happy Holidays” is just being disingenuous.
I am saying it is impossible to put up a secular Christmas or Hannukah sentiment or decoration in public, because they are not secular events. They are religious events, that some have chosen to celebrate on their own in a non-religious way. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that they are religious events.
I have no problem with displaying of holiday decorations that make the non-religious feel better (and that kids like), such as Santa, Rudolph, snow men, etc. That, however, doesn’t change the above.
Hope my position is sufficiently clear now, however you may agree or disagree with it.
OK, now what the hell are “nonspecific but Christian religious whatever”? Are you claiming that because they are not specifically, say, Presbyterian or Catholic that they are somehow “nonspecific”?
Therefore shall we conclude that the phrase “tyranny of the majority” is something you are comfortable with if you happen to be in the majority? That’s not a rhetorical question BTW. Is it really your position that if a majority want to violate the rights of a minority that it should be fine?
**
Well, if you take the ammendment as written hundreds of laws would certainly be unmade. We could have no libel laws, no truth in advertising laws, no laws as to warning labels, no harassment laws, and that’s just dealing with the speech portion. Interpretation, commonlaw, and precedent are all necessary parts of our system of jurisprudence. A bare reading of the original document, divorced from historical context and subsequent real-world tests is valueless.
**
Most agree that this is being taken too far. Most apparently disagree with why that is, however, if I read your reasoning correctly. More below.
**
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the history of Christmas is wholly unconnected with Christianity. People are merely arguing that many people celebrate the holiday in a way that is totally divorced from any religious content, and that Christianity is an optional component of Christmas in America of today, an option that fewer people are incorporating each year if church attendance statistics are to be believed.
As to whether or not public displays have been religiously inclined in the past, I can’t say.
**
While I follow your reasoning, I disagree with the premise. The holiday season is one which may be religious. If there really were no secular celebrations then I would be the first one to voice my agreement that there should be no decorations on public land whatsoever.
This is why nobody much agrees with you. While I am not intimately familiar with the way Hannukah is celebrated, I and many others have assured you that there is a wholly secular Christmas. It is not only very possible, but arguably more widespread than the religious observance, at least in the US. You seem to be saying that since Christmas started out as a religious observance that it must always remain so for everyone. Where is the logic in this? Since I take it that you are Christian, is your Christmas tree or are your Easter eggs still pagan rituals? They started that way, and over time they were incorporated into rituals associated with your religious holiday, so why is it you have a hard time admitting that people have taken nonreligious rituals associated with a Christian holiday and practice them as a wholly secular exercise? When even Jews, let alone atheists, are known to put up Christmas trees, why must you insist that any celebration or decoration relating to Christmas is acknowledgement of a religious holiday? Christmas is both religious and secular.
Your OP dealt with the banning of Christmas trees (among other things) from city property in Eugene. You then asserted that “Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, Pagans” and everyone who isn’t Christian or Jewish "should not…have the right to whitewash [Christmas and Hanukkah] away on a public level. Now, it seems as if you’re just including the Jews haphazardly here, adding “and Hanukkah” to your sentences for diversity’s sake, since you’ve made it clear that the secularization of Christmas is your prime concern (and there’s no reason that Jewish people couldn’t be just as annoyed by the creche at City Hall as anyone else. I also hope it’s clear by now that no one in this thread is arguing that Christmas should be “whitewashed on a public level,” but rather on a state-sponsored level–which is a fundamentally different thing.
Anyway, the implication was that you viewed the removal of Christmas trees from city property as part of the secularization of Christmas. Your OP then went on to say this:
So here you’re saying that Christmas trees do not construe a “specificity that begins to favor one religious interpretation of the holiday over another.”
Later in the thread, you post this:
So Christmas trees “celebrate the Judeo-Christian holidays in a non-specific way.” Phil dealt with this just now, but given what we’re dicussing, how can something be “Christian” and “non-specific”?
You’ve clearly put Christmas trees into the heart of the discussion, equating their removal with a desire to secularize Christmas. That’s why I posted my question, which you still haven’t answered. Let’s try again:
This is how your last post touched on the issue:
Yes, as are “the more secular Christmas decorations” you mention in an earlier post:
With these, as with the Christmas tree, no one’s “kidding themselves” that there’s not an association with Christmas. Mistletoe, gingerbread men, and the like are certainly associated with Christmas. They’re not, however, associated with Christ. You don’t seem capable of making the distinction.
Yes, I have; did you ever look up the etymology of the word “Yule?”
Where was I insulting? You’re overlooking the body on constitutional law regarding the separation of church and state, and centuries of democratic theory preserving against the tyranny of the majority, and instead making this out to be an issue of contention among Dopers without any context or historical antecedents (except the ones you want to throw in there, of course, like the widespread public celebration of Hanukkah in the nineteenth century).
snort Yes, Milo, my posts have been sooooo self-aggrandizing. All I want for Christmas is “a circle of pals to backslap with.” :rolleyes: Keep on adding those hominems, 'kay?
First of all, “public Christmas displays” are not the issue. It’s state-funded religious displays to which those of us on this thread (y’know, my “pals”) are objecting. There is a crucial difference between those two things.
Second, the establishment clause of the First Amendment has been debated in far more august venues than this. You’re trivializing the sentiment against state-sponsored religious displays by characterizing it as ‘some people on an Internet discussion board being vehement.’ Like it or not, prevailing constitutional interpretation agrees with us (oops, agrees with me) about the intent and scope of the establishment clause. For starters, try The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment by Pulitzer Prize-winner Leonard Levy:
Back to you, Milo:
Nope…I’m at my parents’ house for Christmas (and we have a tree, and presents, and lights and stuff, even though we’re not Christian :eek: ), and I don’t have time to go through Findlaw. Be my guest, though…and while you’re there, look up something called “the Lemon test.”
You quoted John Quincy Adams and Noah Webster!!! Those are Framers about as much as Ken Griffey, Jr. and Thomas Boswell were members of the 1975 Cincinnati Reds World Championship team! And I never–ever, ever–said anything about a secular consensus. It’s indisputable, though, that several of the actual Framers were something less than doctrinaire Christians, and would almost certainly have objected to any sort of state-sponsored religion.
If you persist in thinking that it’s okay for Christmas to be a state-sponsored religious celebration, just because the majority of this country identifies themselves as Christian, then there’s nowhere we can go from here.
You are relying on many assumptions here. You are assuming that a vast majority of the 85% are practicing or believers and not just identifying with the church of their youth. You are assuming that a vast majority of the believing Christians care one way or another if there are government sponsored religous displays, You are also assuming that a vast majority of the 85% share your views on the separation of Church and state.
You can’t cite the 85% as if you have a legion of support fr your view because it is all conjecture on your part.
If you wish to state your case using percentages, then find polling data that shows what percentage of citizens feel govrnment sponsored Christmas displays are proper.
“Tyranny of the majority” is a rather drama-queen phrase, IMO. It tends to imply that anything that is done to the benefit or pleasure of the majority is necessarily injurious or discriminating against the minority. I don’t buy that for a second.
See above.
In all of those cases, laws were written to specifically address those issues.
In my subject matter here, I am unaware of any such law. Only the First and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. Which seem to be getting an awful lot read into them that isn’t written there.
**
Says you. There are quite a few strict constructionists who would disagree.
Look, I’m not discounting that post-Constitutional law, case law, history, legal interpretation over the years, all matter. But the law can be wrong. Particularly when the central idea behind the secular sanitization of Christmas is based, in my opinion, on two faulty premises: That Christmas isn’t a Christian holiday, and that the First and 14th Amendments of the Constitution prevent local governments from displaying nonspecific but Christian-influenced Christmas decorations.
I’m not sure you get to do that.
This is America. Celebrate the holiday anyway you please, or not at all. I just don’t think you should get to tell people that if enough of them want a nativity scene in their local park, they can’t have one. It’s not injurious to you a-tall.
Why not? You weren’t around? Or it doesn’t help your argument?
This is why I really don’t care if nobody much agrees with me; this idea is ridiculous.
Look up the definitions of “Christmas” and “Hanukkah.” They are Christian and Jewish holidays, respectively. Do people celebrate them in a non-religious way? Yes. So what? Doesn’t change the aforementioned fact, which has primacy.
Not true. See above. If you (and others) can’t grasp it after this many times of repeating it, I hereby give up.
They are pagan in their roots, have come to be connected to these religious holidays, are irrelevant to the Christian celebration of the holidays, but seem to bring many people some level of joy during those holidays, so why not?
**
I have no problem admitting that at all. Doesn’t change that Christians should be able to put nativity scenes in public parks, though.
Gadarene:
**
No; my OP mentioned the banning of Christmas trees from city property in Eugene.
As I said a few posts back, some seem to believe my points are not clear, or are contradictory. Therefore, I clarified them for you. See the post above where I list 5 points.
**
I stopped talking about Hanukkah because I don’t know much about it. There isn’t much Jewish heritage where I live. Religious Hanukkah expressions, however, are among those removed from public places, along with religious Christian expressions. This is undeniable.
**
A. That isn’t at all clear; and
B. How exactly does that work?
It can be “public;” just keep it in your yard or in the yard of your church, right?
Ah, the “tyrrany of the minority.”
**
Hope my post with my 5 main points clarifies that for you. If not, oh well. Continue to talk about Christmas trees.
You really don’t understand that? Something can’t have a Christian theme, without having a specific Catholic or Protestant bent?
**
This post. Post above with 5 points. Don’t see an answer there, I can’t help you further.
Hey, you’re correct here!
I am capable of making the distinction; I just don’t. Because it’s ridiculous. People can celebrate a Christian holy day in a non-Christian way. That doesn’t make the event no longer a Christian holy day, however.
You just don’t seem capable of grasping that.
Cute. Also irrelevant to this conversation, or my points in this thread.
Don’t have the courage to post that etymology, then?
**
Please show me where I ever said otherwise.
Doesn’t make it overreaching in how it is being manifested on this topic, however.
John Quincy Adams isn’t a Founding Father? Interesting …
The First Amendment forbids Congress from making an “establishment of religion”. The Fourteenth Amendment extends that ban to state and local governments. If taxpayer dollars are being spent to put up emblems of the Christian faith, then this is an establishment of religion. If a private group wants to put up a creche in a public park, using their own money, and there is in fact a “public forum” there, wherein Wiccans can put up pagan decorations for Yule and Jews can put up Jewish decorations for Hanukkah (or other Jewish holidays) and atheists can put up signs saying “There is no god” if they feel like it, then that would certainly be constitutional. If the only private groups allowed to put religious symbols in the park are Christians, then that constitutes state endorsement of Christianity. How far do you think this spending of taxpayer dollars should go, anyway? You say a creche should be acceptable. What about a cross for Easter? What about a big banner with the words to John 3:16 on it to accompany either the creche at Christmas or the cross at Easter?
The Supreme Court has developed something called the Lemon Test to evaluate whether or not government actions violate SOCAS. There are three “prongs” to the Lemon test, all of which an action has to comply with:
I don’t think using taxpayer dollars to put up symbols of the Christian religion passes any of the prongs of the Lemon test, let alone all three.
Per this thread, no. Actually, technically neither was Madison; Madison was, however, a Framer.
I’ve already said that I don’t buy that an “establishment of religion” means what many are interpreting it to mean. And, yet again, a very convoluted extension of what is said in the First AND 14th Amendments is required to end up in a place where local governments can’t put nativity scenes up in a public park.
And the citation of the “Lemon” criteria, is an interpretation of the Constitution; and decidedly not what is written, in either the First or the 14th Amendments.
I never, ever, said your side didn’t have the interpretation of the law on your side. I just believe there is a serious over-interpretation going on here from what is written.
I urge one and all (who have some measure of objectivity on this subject) to check out the actual amendments in question, to read what they say.
See if you then say, “Where are they getting all that?”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Milossarian *
Gadarene:
My fault for not seeing the substantive difference therein. :rolleyes: Your OP used Christmas trees and Jingle Bells as your two examples of the whitewashing of Christmas–forgive me for being unable to realize that the trees were merely meriting a brief mention.
I did see it; I headed my next post, in part, “What Ptahlis said.” I stand by that, and will add, “What beakerxf said and what MEBuckner said.” If you continue to deal with their comments in a personally unsatisfactory manner, I may chime in again.
If you didn’t know much about it, you shouldn’t have been talking about it in the first place. You stopped talking about Hanukkah because you were trying to use it to support your argument, and got called on your misstatements. Judaism and Christianity do not present some sort of united front against people trying to humbug their holiday season; as I said previously, a creche at City Hall could be just as offensive to Jews as it is to atheists and pagans.
sigh Do you really not understand the difference between “public” and “state-sponsored?” And could you show me, please, where people on this thread have been arguing in favor of a wholly secular Christmas?
No, just don’t use state funds to pay for it or put it somewhere that might be construed as giving the display state sanction. I know, I know…that damnable Constitution and the heinous contortions through which Supreme Court justices have twisted its words. Repeat after me: whenever I disagree with prevailing interpretations of the law, the law is wrong and I am right. Yup, that’ll make for a stable society.
Once again–by dismissing the concept of a “tyranny of the majority,” you are kicking away one of the cornerstones of American democratic theory. Just so long as you’re fine with that…
Continue to obscure the issue with misplaced condescension.
Gotta love the selective use of quotes. The sentence in question read more fully as "…given what we’re discussing, how can something be “Christian” and “non-specific?” (Emphasis added.) Do you really not understand that invoking “non-specific Christianity” when the point in contention is the dichotomy between Christian and non-Christian is spectacularly irrelevant? It doesn’t matter if you feel like Christmas decorations are non-specifically Christian, because the point is that they’re (ostensibly) elevating a particular religion over others! The fact that a creche is equally appropriate for Lutherans, Baptists, and Catholics alike doesn’t make it any less potentially violative of the First Amendment’s guarantee against a state-sponsored religion. The Christmas tree, on the other hand, while a part of the Yule celebration (and through Yule, Christmas), is not itself specifically confined to a single religion. If your argument is that Christmas trees, through their association with the birth of Christ, have become intrinsically Christian, then they should be banned from state-funded displays. Since I don’t agree with the initial premise, I don’t follow the conclusion–the Lemon test serves as a handy way to slice the Gordian knot, rendering state display of Christmas trees constitutional and that of overtly Christian icons decidedly un-.
You said that Christmas trees “are irrelevant to the Christian celebration of the holidays.” You’re arguing my side, and I couldn’t agree more. Looks like you can help me further.
Noooo…people are celebrating a winter festival, in all its various incarnations–including one which is purely commerical–in a non-Christian way. As I said, if you want a culprit for the secularization of Christmas specifically, blame the advertising aspect. Otherwise, it seems to have escaped you that what started out as one thing (a pagan festival) and was co-opted by another thing (a festival of the birth of Christ), is wholly capable of being transformed yet again (a secular winter holiday driven mostly by general sentiments of materialism and peace on earth, and framed nominally by trappings of the pagan and Christian festivals which preceded it).
Oh, I hardly think so. Or have you not seen the words “Yule” or “Yuletide” widely used as descriptive synonyms for this holiday season even in this gasp enlightened, Christian age? Yule, Christmas. Tomato, love apple.
Don’t make me get all Bert Lahr on your ass. “Christmas” is a Christian word. Should those of us who aren’t Christian but who celebrate the secular holiday anyway call it something else?
Well, given that this topic specifically touches upon the Establishment Clause…
Yup, and George W. Bush was never director of the CIA. Isn’t it funny the things we learn?
John Quincy Adams was born in 1767. That means he was nine when the revolution began, and twenty when the Constitution was drafted. A Founding Father? Um, hardly.
And you’ll continue to assert this despite evidence of the Framers’ intent to the contrary, hmm? Please go read that book I cited; then come back and talk to us.
Article I:
Article XIV:
Just to help out those of us “who have some measure of objectivity.” Of course, mine is the King James version, so your mileage may vary…
Perhaps true. Use that to dismiss every other point if you’d like.
**
Ummm … I believe I just said why I stopped referring to Hanukkah. If you’d like to start answering for me, why don’t you just masterdebate with yourself?
So where does that leave, do tell?
Obscure the issue? Asked and answered, pal. Disagree with the answer? Say so and move the fuck on.
Nooo … it’s celebrating a Christian holiday with Christian decorations, per the wishes of the community – you know, that tyrannical majority. “Elevating” Buddhism at Christmas is somewhat irrelevant, and I’d imagine a Buddhist would find no particular reason to do so in late December, unless it was to be defiant.
**
Just a difference of opinion here on what the First Amendment actually says, and what what it says actually means.
Congratulations, you have many Dopers and judges and lawyers on your side.
Whatever gets you through December, chum. As I said earlier, feel free to celebrate it or not celebrate it as you see fit. Christmas is still a Christian holiday.
There is no such implication at all. “Tyranny of the majority” is the phrase used when a majority uses its clout to deny a minority their guaranteed rights. I’m sure your cavalier attitude toward that principle would be familiar to blacks who remember the Jim Crow laws.
I’m afraid we come at this issue from such a fundamentally different value set that there is no hope of agreement. Personally, while I think the idea of banning Christmas trees is a misapplication of the church/state separation principle, the principle itself is one I hold quite dearly. So too, equal protection, which encompasses the phrase “tyranny of the majority,” which you dismiss offhandedly.
Gonna respond to my entire post, Milo, or only those parts for which you have a glib and superficial answer?
Seriously? Well, um, anywhere that won’t be construed in that way. By the way, do you know for a fact that Christian decorations wouldn’t be allowed in a public park (if they were paid for privately) or as part of a display, say, in a local mall, or is this just more outraged conjecture on your part?
I addressed the answer elsewhere; I was commenting on the condescension (an attitude which hardly befits someone against whom stands the prevailing body of constitutional law).
“Elevating” any religion at any time is not okay, if done so by the state or with state money. Jesus Christ on a runaway toboggan, man, no one is saying Christians can’t celebrate Christmas!
And feel free to discount the fact that millions of Americans celebrate Christmas in a secular fashion. shrug
Great. An Exalted Festivus to all.
Though you chose not to respond to most of the points I made, Milo, I’d prefer that particular attention be paid this one here:
Comments? Doesn’t this fit a hell of a lot better with the world around us than insisting, all appearances to the contrary, that Christmas is a holiday by Christians, of Christians, and for Christians?
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.
Gadarene: The holiday as it has evolved in the U.S. is a Christian one. Can it continue to evolve? Yes. But so long as it is called “Christmas,” that is a reference to a Christian holy day. I don’t think Christians want to “evolve” away from that. Rather than continuing to corrupt their holy day to a point that even non-church-going Christians such as myself find intolerable, change the name for what you do and do your own thing.
And, although the law has evolved to the histrionics of, “You have a right to never see anything of a remotely religious nature that you might remotely disagree with in a government-owned place,” I disagree with that and think it’s wrong.
If this discussion can continue in a way that isn’t just going around in circles on points that have already been made, I’ll continue. If not, Happy Holidays.
Oh, groan. My distinct impression is that none of the atheists on this board are opposed to Christians celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday, hedonists celebrating it as a secular holiday, or IPUtarians celebrating it as the Feast of the Holy Reindeer for that matter. They just object to their being obliged to in any way support something they do not believe in.
Quoting this “apparently renowned athiest [sic] and ‘secular humanist’” (whom I have never heard of) as representing the views of atheists generally is more or less akin to quoting Jerry Falwell and attributing his views to RT Firefly, BunnyGirl, and myself, despite our repeated assertions to the contrary.
David? Gaudere? VileOrb? Bueller? Anybody? Ever heard of this dude?
As for the idea that private decorations in public places are not allowed, I suspect that is either a local court decision (playing First Amendment too broadly) or simply that those who might do it are either too cheap or have found more important things to do with their money, like feeding the poor, housing the homeless, reaching out to the poor in spirit and trying to give them hope. You know, some of those radical ideas advocated by the Jewish heretic whose birthday you want to see made more festive.
I don’t know about where you live, but in Cincinnati the ACLU defended the right of the KKK to put up a large, plain white wooden cross in the public square at Christamastime using their own money.
See above to show that you are wrong, at least on a nationwide basis.
:::snort::: You really want to continue arguing along this line? If you do, then look up the etymology of the word “Easter.” When you do, and you find out to what it refers, then the only tenable position for you to hold is that all Christians are in the wrong. In fact, I’ll save you the trouble: The word refers to the goddess Eostre, the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxons. Her name was derived from the word for “spring.” It’s a celebration of the rebirth of the fields after the long winter. So if you want to argue down Etymology Avenue, then Christians are no longer allowed to corrupt this exciting pagan festival by using the word “Easter.” They have to find a new word and do their own thing.
See what a stupid argument it becomes?
You know what’s funny? In Cleveland at Christmas, Public Square is decorated with all sorts of holiday crap, including Christian and Jewish symbols. The major churches and cathedrals downtown, including the headquarters of the Episcopal and Catholic diocese, contain nary a decoration on the outside. Weird, huh? I guess the religious people can’t be bothered to put out their religious symbols.
In an 1832 letter James Madison (who wasn’t a Founding Father but who was a Framer, and in fact a principal author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) said the following (I’d also direct your attention to the quote I posted above from his “Memorial and Remonstrance”):
Madison also wrote, in 1822, that “religion & Gov’t will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
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:
I realize you don’t accept this interpretation of the Constitution; I just want to make it clear that the Supremes weren’t making this stuff up out of whole cloth.