Can The Government Legally ‘Protect’ Christmas?

For various reasons, many us have grown tired of the alleged war on Christmas and the “Keeping Christ in Christmas” campaign. Some of us are bothered by this because the arguments made imply that this holiday, and its traditions, require some type of protection from the ‘heathens’ that plague our country.

At least 36 members of the House of Representatives are among those who believe that Christmas somehow requires government protection. On Dec. 11, the following resolution was sent to the Committee of Oversight Government and Reform:

“Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who celebrate Christmas.

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the House of Representatives —

(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;

(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and

(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions by those who celebrate Christmas.”

In all honesty, this resolution does not surprise me and is simply a political ploy to please some on the Christian right. What bothers me about this resolution, however, is the attempt to solidify it with a comment about the framer’s alleged intent behind this amendment.

Though the comment is partially correct, that the discussion of religion is not prohibited in civic dialogue, the representatives neglect to understand the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The actual text states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

“not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.”

I am not a Constitutional expert, but I think that this is exactly what this resolution does. Though this simple resolution will not technically become law, the resolution itself is the government favoring or endorsing a single religion.

This resolution does not specify Christianity, but it is favoring a holiday celebrated mostly by Christians. I understand that Christmas is celebrated by more than just Christians, but the “symbols and traditions” this resolution refers to are more likely about baby Jesus and his manger and not Santa Claus and his reindeer.

Although I understand that:

“some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates.

This resolution is certainly something that the Constitution absolutely should not tolerate.

Even if the Constitution would allow it, the resolution is just plain dumb. Whether religious or secular, Christmas is not a holiday in need of any special government protection.

What do you think: does Christmas need government protection?

Featured image by Jackie under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.