Should cities and towns put up Christmas lights?

[Elrohir]

If Christmas lights *were* religious, then it is irrelevant to whether or not a high percentage of people celebrated Christmas. Even if you don't argue that the US is not secular, you must argue that it is pluralistic, as freedom of the expression of religion is fundamental to US society. Then it is a matter of including other religious expressions as well to not endorse one religion. The argument then is the same of the inclusion of the 10 commandments in government buildings; if the 10 commandments were allowed, then other religious laws must be allowed as well.

I see no problem with governmental endorsement of even blatantly religious holidays if they are celebrated by the vast majority of citizens, those who belong to the religion in question, or not, as long as this holiday isn't inherently offensive or likely to cause harm. (IE, "kill the infidel day", with prizes for the best infidel hunter )

Of course, I don't have a problem with putting up Menorah's for Hanukkah, or crescents for Ramadan, if a substantial portion of the population desires it.

 

[Bill3000]

I see no problem with governmental endorsement of even blatantly religious holidays if they are celebrated by the vast majority of citizens, those who belong to the religion in question, or not, as long as this holiday isn't inherently offensive or likely to cause harm. (IE, "kill the infidel day", with prizes for the best infidel hunter )

Then I guess that's fine in a country which doesn't have the establishment clause. But we live in the United States, where such a thing is against the constitution.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

The whole point of businesses paying for the decorations is to increase customer traffic and sales downtown during one of the most difficult times of the year to get customers out walking from store to store. I personally know at least half a dozen local merchants who are openly atheist and can't stand anything god or Jesus related, and they still put the lights up. Regardless of whether the business owners believe in Christmas or not, it brings in the customers. In short, it works.

It's usually NOT a waste of money for the businesses that pay for it. The good will you get for acknowledging those shopper's religious affiliation translates into more profit, which is what is really important here.

Christmas is such a big slam dunk to your bottom line, it would be stupid not to try to push some of that money your way. If putting up "unity triangles" and red and green lights is what it takes, more power to you. Christmas blows our annual Elvisfest out of the water every year, and ElvisFest lasts two days.

 

[Elrohir]

Then I guess that's fine in a country which doesn't have the establishment clause. But we live in the United States, where such a thing is against the constitution.

I think you're reading the Establishment clause much too narrowly. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no problem with the government creating or allowing religious displays on public property as long as some vague secular purpose is also served. For example, in Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, the court ruled that:

The Court has invalidated legislation or governmental action on the ground that a secular purpose was lacking, but only when it has concluded there was no question that the statute or activity was motivated wholly by religious considerations. Even where the benefits to religion were substantial, we saw a secular purpose and no conflict with the Establishment Clause.
....
The narrow question is whether there is a secular purpose for Pawtucket's display of the creche. (Nativity scene) The display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of that Holiday. These are legitimate secular purposes. The District Court's inference, drawn from the religious nature of the creche, that the city has no secular purpose was, on this record, clearly erroneous.

It seems to me that as long as there is something beneficial to the community besides a wholly religious aspect - say, building of community spirit, increased commercial activity (As is the case with the Christmas lights) enforcement of the law, or anything else like that, governmental endorsement of religious celebrations are perfectly legal.

 

[Sidhe]

It's fine, can't say I'd cry overmuch if lights weren't put up, but hey they look nice sometimes, and a change of scenery is always pleasant. If you feel that strongly, wall yourself up in your house, and take down the shotgun for when Santa drops by, or Carol singers.

 

[Bill3000]

It seems to me that as long as there is something beneficial to the community besides a wholly religious aspect - say, building of community spirit, increased commercial activity (As is the case with the Christmas lights) enforcement of the law, or anything else like that, governmental endorsement of religious celebrations are perfectly legal.

I know, and this is irrelevant to what you said. You said that "I see no problem with governmental endorsement of even blatantly religious holidays if they are celebrated by the vast majority of citizens." This has nothing to do with the endorsement of holidays for secular purposes - it is not a necessary condition. Christmas is endorsed because it has a secular component, not because it is celebrated by the vast majority of citizens.

Heck, to put it in the words of a judge, in the decision of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) this is what the establishment clause means, in the basics:

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 form 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."

Note that has nothing to do with what you stated: "A religious holiday should be endorsed if it is celebrated by the majority of citizens." Doing it for that sole purpose violates the establishment clause.

 

[Elrohir]

I know, and this is irrelevant to what you said. You said that "I see no problem with governmental endorsement of even blatantly religious holidays if they are celebrated by the vast majority of citizens." This has nothing to do with the endorsement of holidays for secular purposes - it is not a necessary condition. Christmas is endorsed because it has a secular component, not because it is celebrated by the vast majority of citizens.

But if the vast majority of a nations citizens celebrate a holiday, then it's almost certain than governmental endorsement of that holiday will serve multiple secular purposes. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

EDIT: What judge was that? Case?

 

[Bill3000]

But if the vast majority of a nations citizens celebrate a holiday, then it's almost certain than governmental endorsement of that holiday will serve multiple secular purposes. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

"Almost certain" isn't a necessary condition. It does not logically follow that the celebration of a holiday by most people must lead to serve secular purposes.

EDIT: What judge was that? Case?

I already said the case, but the case was Everson v. Board of Education (1947), and the judge was Hugo Black, a constitutional literalist.

 

[BCLG100]

Yeah, 'cuz its fun. Down here the businesses all fund it. Brings in customers.

I agree and the same happens where i am as well

 

[Elrohir]

"Almost certain" isn't a necessary condition. It does not logically follow that the celebration of a holiday by most people must lead to serve secular purposes.

Can you point to a celebration by a large majority of people that does not serve any secular purpose?

I already said the case, but the case was Everson v. Board of Education (1947), and the judge was Hugo Black, a constitutional literalist.

The case wasn't up there when I posted. Anyway, I agree with what he said, actually.

 

[Rossiya]

No you should only do it on property you own.

The government has no obligation to endorse any religious festival.

It's hardly a "religious festival" now is it?

 

[Ansar]

It's hardly a "religious festival" now is it?

I dont even consider it a religious festival.

Most, if not all, of the people I know celebrate Christmas.