A Nativity scene is displayed next to the City Hall in Belen, New Mexico in December 2016. Annual battles over erecting Nativity scenes on public land continue to pit some residents against advocacy groups pushing separation of church and state. | AP Photo Massachusetts lawmakers oppose Christmas celebrations: Dec. 25, 1651

On this day in 1651, the Puritan-dominated General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered a fine of five shillings for “observing any such day as Christmas.” During the Colonial era, that body, the antecedent of the Commonwealth’s Legislature, also sat as an appeals court.

As historian Kay Kizer has noted, the Puritans, who controlled the political and religious life of the colony, “stripped away the traditional trappings and formalities of Christianity, which had been slowly building throughout the previous 1,500 years.” That also meant doing away with marking the birth of Jesus Christ.


“Theirs was an attempt to ‘purify’ the church and their own lives,” Kizer added.

Today, Christmas remains the sole religious holiday that is also a U.S. national holiday. Consequently, the courts have continued to grapple with the proper role of Christmas in a constitutional framework that mandates the separation of church and state, effectively barring Christianity from becoming an official state-sponsored religion.

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lynch v. Donnelly that a nativity scene that was part of an official Christmas display outside City Hall in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, remained within the norms of church-state separation. The high tribunal’s 5-4 opinion also broadly reviewed the ways the nation’s “religious heritage” can properly be honored, referring to the more secular elements of the Pawtucket display, such as reindeer and a Christmas tree.

Ever since, lower federal courts, having been repeatedly required to rule on similar but not identical displays, have equivocated on whether the 1984 opinion established broad or narrow guidelines for sanctioning official Christmas celebrations. In 1987, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit panel struck down a Pawtucket-type display — a crèche plus Santa Claus and reindeer — that Chicago authorities erected inside City Hall. The majority said the location impermissibly conveyed the impression that government tacitly endorsed Christianity.

After fielding complaints, some school administrators in several states have curtailed Christmas-related activities for fear of offending Muslim students and their parents.

In 2013, the Texas state Legislature enacted a so-called Merry Christmas law that has so far withstood judicial scrutiny.

The statute states that “a school district may educate students about the history of traditional winter celebrations, and allow students and district staff to offer traditional greetings regarding the celebrations, including: ‘Merry Christmas,’ ‘Happy Hanukkah’ and ‘happy holidays.’”

It allows school districts to “display on school property scenes or symbols associated with traditional winter celebrations, including a menorah or a Christmas image such as a nativity scene or a Christmas tree,” provided that “the display includes a scene or symbol of more than one religion or one religion and at least one secular scene or symbol.”

SOURCE: CENTER FOR LAW AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF THE CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY

