Have Yourself a Secular Little Nondenominational Holiday

Duncan says:

I've long been puzzled by the difficulty many - even fairly nonreligious people - have in seeing them as secular holidays grafted onto religious ones. Christmas was about trees and Santa and presents. Easter was about chocolate bunnies and colored eggs. While both have their roots in religious traditions, the secular traditions easily exist independently.

Which is correct. There is no Establishment Clause problem with a government entity putting up lights and wishing people a generic "Happy Holidays".

But then he says:

So, for holiday displays on public property, trees and lights are fine but nativity scenes and crosses aren't. It really isn't that complicated.

This conflates two issues: Semi-public forums for Free Speech purposes and the Establishment Clause. The Washington State case involves the state opening up a space for speech by private actors. Once it does that, it must not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. So, if it takes religious messages, then it must take messages from all religions (or those who oppose religion). That's different from the government speaking. In the case of private speech on public property, "nativity scenes and crosses" are fine, iff all other religious displays are permitted, too. Olympia just found out what it means to do that.

Update: Ah, he was making a normative claim that government shouldn't open up limited public fora for religious expression. I tend to agree. Either you get sheepish conformity (with the attendant risk that people begin to think Religion X is the State Religion) or you get uproar. If  there were different displays with a whole lot of mutual respect and tolerance of diverse opinions - then it wouldn't be religion, now would it?

Comments

[Douglas Watts]

For the Celts and Scythians, severed heads on poles were like lawn jockeys.

[eb]

All correct. And it would seem that you hold your readers in rather high esteem, as knowledge that "iff" means "if and only if" is not completely common. Thanks for that!

[Mithras]

What's blogging without obscure references?

[upyernoz]

iff everyone could get that reference

[Annie]

I don't think you can say that Duncan's statement is correct. It's certainly one opinion that it is easily accomplished to divorce the secular aspects of Christmas and Easter from the religious traditions, but it's definitely not true for everyone. Christmas is named for Christ after all, and Christmas and Easter represent the holiest of days for practicing Christians, like the High Holy Days for Jews. For many of the non-religious of us, it makes it hard to feel comfortable calling the trappings of Christmas our own, although having children certainly complicates matters.

[Mithras]

Yeah, I see what you mean. I was focused more on the legal issues, and sort of casually accepted the idea that nonreligious people could easily separate the religious roots of the holiday in their own minds. I think it's easy for some people and harder for others. Personally, I get caught up in the sentimentality of the season, but then again, I don't have kids.

[pastordan]

If there were different displays with a whole lot of mutual respect and tolerance of diverse opinions - then it wouldn't be religion, now would it?

Haven't you ever heard of Unitarians? (Not my people, by the way - I'm from one of the old "kill-'em-all-let-God-sort-them-out" traditions.)

[Mithras]

Right, Unitarians. Not religious. That's what I said. ;)

[Narya]

My dad wins the internets. I was raised atheist (and this was back in the day, when that was unusual) but we had a christmas tree and presents and such. I asked my dad why we celebrated christmas if we didn't believe in christ, to which he replied, "We celebrate Halloween and we don't believe in ghosts; why give up a perfectly good holiday?" I give my parents a lot of credit for finding a balance there.