Chez Chesler

The Volokh Conspiracy had a long-commented thread on Government Display of Christmas Trees. That (and government displayes of creches) was why I first started reading the VC. I added some comments to the thread, some of which I reproduce here: Christmas trees do not send the message "Christ died for you sins and if you don't accept him as your Savior you are going to Hell." But they do send the message "This is a Christian country, and if you're not Christian, your beliefs just aren't quite as important, although if you insist, we'll let you celebrate your holidays, as long as you do so when we're celebrating our holidays, and in the same way as we celebrate our holidays." That is not so far out a view. [On the Programmers Guild mailing list] one contributor had no compunction saying that folks who come here ought to assimilate, by speaking English and adopting Christianity. I'll believe that the pretty lights and Santa Claus and all that on my city's Commons, which are seamlessly next to a Creche which may be funded more privately, and around which the city has a wonderful town event on the Sunday after Thanksgiving (hay rides, petting zoo, singers on the city hall steps [from good amateurs to Cub Scouts who were just handed the lyrics to Rudolph] and just when it gets dark the Mayor flips a switch and turns on all the lights) when I see a sukkah on the same Common some September. The analogy doesn't hold. (I blogged about that here last year.) Not only doesn't every religion make a public display around the winter solstice, not every religion makes a public display at all. As David Bernstein (?) pointed out in a recent entry, chassidim such as the Lubavitchers do not represent all of Judaism. Lubavitchers and Chabad take a very "in your face" position. (This is both within the Jewish community -- they run tefillin-mobiles, actively proselytizing to coreligionist [and uncannily picking out the Jews in a crowd] to fulfill the mitzvah that day of laying tefillin -- and without.) Their approach, making sure that any public Christmas tree is matched by a Menorah that is at least as big and bright has merit ("We're here, we're Jews, get used to it") but it is not the only approach. Secular and cultural views are also worthy of respect. Those who were not raised on it might not like traditional eastern European Jewish cooking. There is nothing particularly religious about the food, but it would be impolite to impose it on those who don't like it.

---

John Rowe wrote:

Let's just declared Christmas to be a secular holiday and move on. I just got a Christmas card from the most fervent atheist I know.

and I responded:

Sure, in fact why not declare belief in Jesus as secular, then all the unbelievers aren't practitioners of other religions, they're being unpatriotic. Nothing in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses prohibits patriotism, right?

---

Responding to: Constitutional concerns aside, what is the libertarian argument for spending government resources to put up Christmas trees? This libertarian, who tends to be yellow-dog in his fervor (though not anarcho-capitalist), and very strict in his interpretation of what it means to "establish" a religion, doesn't particularly mind when the line gets blurred between local governments and community associations. A city of 8 million people is beyond local democracy, but a town of 30 thousand is small enough that it can't do much damage, it doesn't take many people to make a change, and it isn't so big that moving with your feet isn't an option.

---

If all other religions are suppressed does that not "Establish" Atheism as the state religion? No more than "No talking in the library" establishes ASL as the national language. Brooks Lyman (Brooklineman?) draws a parallel between the synagogues, Jewish businesses, etc. (whose existence doesn't offend him) and the government acting in promotion of a particular religion: It seems to be a small number of paranoid, publicity-seeking victim cult types who raise all these stinks, whatever the issue. Can't we just ignore them and get on with our lives? How the Hell did they manage to get a foot into the courtroom door on these issues? Nobody is offended by members of the dominant sect practicing their religion in their own churches or private lives.

---

How about Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? Is he an antlered expression of Christianity? There were certain Jewish homes in the 1960s where Charlie Brown[*] Christmas and Rudolph were acceptable, but Little Drummer Boy was over the line. (Frosty was no problem.) Different people may draw their lines differently. [*]This may have been more based on the Charles Shultz exception (similar to the Chinese restaurant exception) than a deep analysis. Linus' speech from Luke 2:8-12 was my first exposure to Christian theology. Of course in addition to the line of "what we may bring into this house", the line for "what from the Christian celebrations of their holiday is it acceptable for us to share" is different from the line for "what is neutral, and acceptable for the proper role of government, and what is sectarian and not proper." Tom Cross writes I'm agnostic, and I celebrate Christmas. As I wrote earlier, analogies don't always hold. Just as all kosher food is hallal, I can't think of anything in Jewish liturgy or practice that is forbidden to Christians. A Christian is free to eat matzah and hear the story of the exodus. The reverse is not true: A Jew is forbidden to invoke the Trinity. The line isn't clear or bright, but there are some things that are too much like practicing another religion and are thus forbidden to Jews. Tom can do Christmas as much as he wants: there is no Agnosticism that he is denying or violating.

---

It is more likely that people of deep faith have taken a cultural symbol and wrapped it in religion because, for them, the religious aspect of Christmas is of primary importance. I can accept that, but that doesn't mean everyone else must believe the same as they do. Or people of shallower faith have taken a religiously-linked practice and claimed it is secular because they can cast a bigger tent. That doesn't mean that everybody has to get under that tent. Good point, David M. Nieporent, that there are a lot of people who have not secularized Christmas. It may be somewhat ironic that the only way to keep this Christian holiday from becoming secular is to refuse to celebrate it, thereby serving witness that it is not secular. Just as the only way to get the school to close on Rosh Hashonah may be to keep your children home from school, not that you particularly care, because use it or lose it. A lot of Jews avoid majority-sect practices as much as possible, to avoid a loss of tribal identity. A much as I like eggnog and pfeffernuse and pretty lights, they may have a point.

---

Talking about this with Dad, he sees anti-Semitism and asks:

What is the message sent when SeaTac takes down all its Christmas trees and then blames it on the Jews?

---

To which DavidE responded: This sounds awfully much like the argument of "don't make waves or they'll come kill the Jews." That's a discredited argument. and I clarified: It's more like "See, I told you there were anti-Semites out there. You can always find a stick to beat a dog, so don't worry about making waves, but be ever vigilant, and know that whether you accept them imposing their holiday on everybody, or ask for an acknowledgement that theirs is not the only sect, they'll use it to attack you." The message he heard SeaTac sending was "The Jews are trying to kill our holiday, just like they killed Our Lord." (Why did the Grinch have garlic in his soul? Why do some people think Ebenezer Scrooge is Jewish?)

---

Can anyone show a direct Christian tie to the tree other than the fact it is used as decoration during the multi-holiday season surrounding the Winter Solstice by Western cultures? There is no multi-holiday season, except that for any date you can find other holidays nearby. What's a "direct" tie? Some scholars think Jews learned circumcision from the Egyptians, but the Egyptians aren't here any more, so a brit millah is very Jewish. (If you're circumcised on the 2nd day in the hospital or at age 13, then it's not Jewish -- if you happen to have a Balsam Fir growing in your yard, that's not Christian.) Eating matzoh and drinking wine -- Christian or Jewish? It depends on the context, seder or communion. Some customs change (few enough people, Christian or not, consider Halloween to be All Hallow's Eve that it's not a big deal.) But as much as those who would like it to be universal want it to be, Christmas has not become secular. That some non-Christians adopt some Christmas customs that their own belief system doesn't prohibit doesn't make them any less Christian.

---

David M. Nieporent wrote: [H]ypothetically, let's conduct a poll. If you pointed to a tree with lights and such on it and said, "What's that?", what percentage of passersby would respond with one of: 1) A Winter Solstice Tree, 2) An Evergreen Tree 3) A Pagan Tree 4) A December Tree 5) A Multi-Holiday Season Tree And what percentage would respond: 6) A Christmas Tree Do you think that the number of people answering 1-5 would get out of the single digits combined? And I noted: For better or worse, if that tree happened to be in a Jewish home, the answer might be "It's a Chanukah Bush. No really. We don't have any Christmas Trees in this house, no sirree. No Christmas here, this is a Jewish house." Nieporent responded: I thought the whole "Chanukah Bush" thing was a semi-joke that died out a few decades ago. Of course, that still sort of supports my basic point: even when some Jews were doing that, they didn't say "It's a Christmas tree, which is okay because Christmas trees are secular." They said "It's not a Christmas tree [because Christmas trees are for Christians]. It's a Chanukah Bush."

Let me get this straight, if you kill a seagull that has been attacking you while you're working 20 stories up you're a felon (Guay pleads guilty, gets one-year suspended sentence) but if you kick a hawk in the head, you're a hero?

Local News Updates - SJC upholds Sex Offender Registry rules -The Boston Globe:

Offender 1211 admitted sexually assaulting a girl in 1992, for which he was imprisoned for about a year. Since then, the man has become a Muslim, attends sex offender counseling regularly for treatment of pedophilia, and has been crime free. The board classified him as a Level 1; he wanted to be free of lifetime sex offender supervision because he maintained that he was not a public safety risk.

Justice John M. Greaney said the board got it right. "The fact remains that there is no objective certainty that Doe can be trusted to alone with children," he wrote.

Where is the objective certainty that Justice Greaney can be trusted alone with children?