tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post7360218602839852871..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Tis the Season of TaxationBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-64567363791009660192011-11-16T09:39:34.693-05:002011-11-16T09:39:34.693-05:00Molly said that the Christmas trees are both secul...Molly said that the Christmas trees are both secular and religous. Can something be both? I don't believe so. Christmas trees are secular, almost everyone I know, regardless their religion, purchases a Christmas tree during the holidays. Also, in Lynch v Donelly,the Supreme Court ruled an entire nativity scene to be secular, therefore, they must remain consistent and say the Christmas tree tax is secular (even though religion is not an issue in this matter)Liz Petrillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02967100214418594203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-3609431583283644902011-11-16T01:34:45.030-05:002011-11-16T01:34:45.030-05:00The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with t...The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with the governmental establishment of religion. It is totally absurd to think that the government is barred from trying to help spur growth in an industry because that industry's product is inherently religious. The Establishment Clause bars the government from promoting a religion, not from promoting capitalism. <br /><br />On a side note, Molly ended her post by arguing "If there is a promotional campaign supported by the government for one religious symbol, there must be one for other religious symbols as well." She already argued that such a program would be a form of establishment, so what she essentially said is that establishment is ok so long as the government establishes all religions equally. I'm sure that's not what she meant, but that's the way it came across.Christopher J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04936751773005561475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-72398853651578057272011-11-15T20:46:56.985-05:002011-11-15T20:46:56.985-05:00I'm going to have to agree with Harry on this ...I'm going to have to agree with Harry on this one. The tax on Christmas trees in this situation should be no more controversial than the successful "Got Milk" ad campaigns that promoted the drinking of milk. <br /><br />The celebration of Christmas in the United States, in my opinion, has become too commercialized to make this issue controversial. Although the Christmas tree is a symbol of a primarily Christian holiday, imposing a tax on the Christmas tree would not violate the establishment clause in any way. If the tax were to actually be enforced, it would have a secular legislative purpose (many Jews in America recognize Christmas as a holiday and buy Christmas trees and decorations to celebrate), it would not in any way "advance or inhibit religion," and it wouldn't result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion, because the primary purpose of the tax would be to support the Christmas tree industry - which is not particular to any faith or religious tradition.Andrew Lichtenauerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147859664062704362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-60748861588314127332011-11-14T18:39:44.723-05:002011-11-14T18:39:44.723-05:00I disagree with Molly that this program would cons...I disagree with Molly that this program would constitute government establishment of religion. This tax would be imposed directly on the producers and importers and would therefore use no tax dollars. There is no more government collusion in this program than there is with any other similar program such as the "Got Milk" campaign. There can be no establishment of religion in the private campaign to support a producer which is not funded by the government.Harry R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14904234636407712910noreply@blogger.com