+22

I changed my mind from stating that giving holiday on Christmas violates the establishment clause to that I do not know. That is because it is very reasonable that the reason could be caring not about the religion itself but about what the people want and having a day off does not by itself contain anything honoring to the religion. That makes it similar to the examples I mentioned in the lower half of the preceding post for which I also need to change from affirming their validity to the I do not currently know position (However the point of contrasting them with the example in the upper half of that post remains the same). That is because I feel that I may have not given enough attention to the passive side in applying the establishment clause.
By the way, even with the way the court took things here according to its opinion in that case, how did Thanksgiving get thrown to the same basket with Christmas in relation to that clause? Thanksgiving could have been called Thank The Giving of God and people would generally go to their worship houses to thank God on that day and there would still be no proof of violation to that clause. That is because one very reasonable understanding here, if not the main one, is that the celebration is for a history event not related to religion.  Choosing to Thank God for that event no matter how wide spread would not change it to an establishment of religion.