Court Opinion

ID: 9469864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:50:59.952657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:36.348958
License: Public Domain

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As the nativity scene is prototypically symbolic of Christmas — and as Christmas is itself a legal holiday whose constitutionality is not here questioned — I think the court errs in holding that the display in a public park during the Christmas season of characters and animals associated with that scene constitutes “an establishment of religion” within the first amendment. Unassociated, as they were, with the performance of any religious rites, the figures did not “establish” religion in the context in which they were presented. They simply contributed to the message that the holiday they represented was at hand.
It must be borne in mind that this creche was but part of a larger display in the same location which included a talking wishing well, a Santa’s house inhabited by a live Santa who distributed candy, trees of various sizes, reindeer, and 21 cutout figures including a clown, dancing elephant, robot and teddy bear. The whole melange, including the creche, was nothing more nor less than a potpourri of well-recognized Christmas symbols. Had a solitary creche been displayed in July, one might see it as designed to serve chiefly religious ends, *1038since there would then be no holiday with which it was particularly identified. But creches and Santas in December are as typically symbolic of Christmas as turkeys and Pilgrims in November are symbolic of Thanksgiving.
The root of the difficulty lies in the fact that Christmas originated as, and to some people continues to be, a religious holiday.1 For that reason certain of its established symbols relate to myths bearing, for some, a religious meaning. In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Christmas is defined as follows:
An annual church festival kept on December 25 or by the Armenians on January 6 in memory of the birth of Christ, celebrated generally by a particular church service, special gifts and greetings, and observed in most Christian communities as a legal holiday.
Because Christmas memorializes the founder of Christianity and is a church festival, it might be argued that the state and national governments should not be allowed to recognize it at all. Such an argument— unlike, I submit, the court’s present position — would at least be logically consistent. In my opinion, the two most logically consistent positions are as follows: either Christmas itself, because of its inextricably intertwined religious roots, cannot constitutionally be a national holiday, in which case displays of the type here in issue would also be unconstitutional; or else Christmas is constitutional, in which case all its relevant symbols, including those depicting the nativity, are likewise constitutional, so long as displayed for the purpose of announcing the holiday.
No one has argued in this case that Christmas as a national holiday is itself unconstitutional. Chief Judge Pettine, it is true, wrote in his opinion below that if the creche is not declared unconstitutional, then Christmas itself might have to be declared unconstitutional. He would thus “save” Christmas by shearing it of all its religious trappings. This is a possible approach, but I wonder if it really works. It seems a little like maintaining a holiday known as “Washington’s Birthday” while extirpating all reference to George Washington. Christmas, so long as called by that name, inescapably recalls the birth of the founder of Christianity. To “save” it by pretending to the contrary has an almost Orwellian twist. I do not think constitutional values are furthered by this kind of thinking.
The fact is, Christmas, with its clear religious as well as its secular roots, has become an ingrained part of our culture. Were one today to seek to make a national holiday out of such a church festival, constitutional objections might well prevail. But Christmas is water over the dam. And so, I would argue, are all its established symbols, including carols and creches. To retain the holiday but outlawing these ancient symbols seems to me an empty and even rather boorish gesture.2 If creches are to be outlawed, so too should stars and carols. And surely, the name itself — Christmas, deriving from “Christ” and “mass” — should be the first to go if the Constitution requires the eradication of any and all religious connotations!
I think we should accept what seems obvious — that, for historic reasons, Christmas *1039is a constitutionally valid part of our national life. In having so become, it allows like any holiday the display of its accepted symbols — that and no more. To the extent these carry religious as well as mythical connotations, they must when placed on public property, be shown in a manner limited to announcement of the holiday rather than of a religious celebration or the inculcation of religion. The first amendment would plainly not allow the city to pay for a Christmas mass in a public park or the like. But the nativity scene has merged into the accepted Christmas symbolism. When seasonally deployed without accompanying religious ceremonies or message, I do not think it can be said to establish religion, any more than would the piping in of carols or similar activities having a religious base which our society has come to accept as part and parcel of the Christmas season.
I would uphold the constitutionality of the Rhode Island display and reverse the decision below.

. I do not disagree with Judge Bownes that modern Christmas has many secular and pagan aspects besides. My point is not that symbols portraying the birth of Christ are the exclusive symbols of the season; far from it. My point is merely that such symbols are clearly and inescapably a part of the total symbolism of the holiday, and therefore cannot be deleted without committing an act of censorship against the holiday itself.

. Although no more boorish, perhaps, than the City of Pawtucket’s argument that the real purpose of the creche was to bring shoppers to town.