The “Christmas Resolution” that the city of Branson’s Board of Aldermen (the board) is voting on Dec. 10 is not an establishment clause or freedom of religion issue. From a pure legal, logic, and governmental function perspective it is a simple resolution of the board stating their support of Ozark Mountain Christmas and encouraging Branson businesses and residents to take actions that will support it.
Some might ask, “Why do we need a resolution?” An Ole Seagull would respond, “For the same reason the board felt there was a need for another resolution stating the city’s opposition to the expansion of gambling; to provide leadership, without the force of law requiring someone to either do or not do something, on an issue that the board believes is important to the community.”
The operable portions of the resolution are straight forward and simple. From a potential conflict of interest point of view the Ole Seagull would point out that he was personally involved with the drafting of the first two sections of the resolution and fully supports its passage by the board.
Section 1 simply states, “The Board of Aldermen hereby states its support of the celebration of Ozark Mountain Christmas.” That is a simple straight forward statement of support for an event that is an important and integral part of our community. Does the fact that the word “Christmas” happens to be a part of the name of that event make it an establishment clause issue?
May an Ole Seagull suggest that the answer to that question is contained in a simple announcement from a government office stating, “Please Note: In addition to being closed on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, the Court will be closed on Monday, December 24 and Monday, December 31.” The court being mentioned is the U.S. Supreme Court and the announcement quoted is directly from its website and can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/holiday_closures.html.
It’s interesting to note that the U.S. Supreme Court could have done the politically popular thing, left out the words “Christmas Day” and merely said, that it would be closed on “December 25.” One thing is for certain though, the use of the term “Christmas” in this context certainly illustrates that the use of the word “Christmas” to describe an event is not a violation of the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution.
The second section of the resolution states, “In furtherance of that support, the Board hereby urges Branson businesses to try to keep the word and spirit of “Christmas” in Christmas and to foster the history and heritage of the traditional American Christmas in Branson, Missouri.” How is the simple urging of the board to the very businesses benefiting from Ozark Mountain Christmas to keep the word Christmas and the spirit of Christmas in Christmas a violation of the establishment clause?
Even the U.S. Supreme Court kept the word “Christmas” in “Christmas Day.” The spirit of Christmas and the history and heritage that makes up the traditional American Christmas is decided within the individual hearts and minds of those celebrating it and is based on their life’s experience and beliefs. Christmas and the traditional American Christmas is not a religion. It’s a state of mind that varies from individual to individual and may or may not have a religious significance to any particular individual celebrating it.
In terms of logic and pure legality, as to the resolution itself and its applicability to Ozark Mountain Christmas, to an Ole Seagull, the resolution is more about “truth in advertising” than religion. The fact that Christmas itself has a spiritual significance to him personally and represents the celebration of the birth of his Savior, Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God has no more bearing on the resolution being an establishment clause issue than does the fact that Christmas means no more to some people than a chance to make money from those who come to Branson to celebrate Ozark Mountain Christmas.
