+20

Continuing from the preceding post:

Here is a wikipedia LINK to an 1984 case in which the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts in their ruling that the Christmas decorations in question violate the First Amendment. I think that the court was wrong here and one can respond to the examples mentioned in the "Ruling" section there as follows. Yes, giving federal holiday on Christmas Day violates the establishment clause. But that practice began on 1870. The legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate, on the other hand, has much more importance here because of its proximity to the making and makers of the Amendment. However, that action does not necessarily violates the Amendment. That is because unlike the situation with the Christmas decorations of that city or giving Christmas Day as holiday, starting the action in question from the want of the same entity to which it applies and has the choice to accept or refuse can be claimed to be motivated by respect for the need or want of that entity without having that respect follows from a respect that was applied to the religious establishments first. Congress is good fit for that because representing its want is no different from making any other law.
The above was written with the assumption that the establishment clause also applies on the government there because I have not yet thought about the issue of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporating to this one.