I see what you're saying here, but I think you underestimate the importance of the key observation Dionne makes:

"There is something defective about a religious tolerance open to every expression of religion except for the faith of those who believe most passionately."

I'm not a Christian myself, but I also don't care much if people want to pretend baby Jesus saved them for a few weeks. However, if there are people for whom this is deeply offensive (and in the case of the US, I have no idea) then I can see a perfectly valid case for government distancing itself from the whole thing.

What if there was a made up issue and no-one talked about it?

Nice, Martin.

Unnh! I don't get it! Talk more about the Establishment Clause! (I think it's an interesting take to say that the reason it's complicated is the tension between separation and the predominance of Christianity. No doubt that has a lot to do with, say, the doctrinal difference between "accommodating" and "establishing" religion. I always had the more ... hoary notion that the big tension arose in the beginning of the welfare state. When the government neither heavily taxed nor subsidized anything, it was easy enough both to 1) treat religious entities the same as nonreligious ones, and 2) not directly advance religious goals. But when you're taxing everyone and regulating and spending heavily to support a lot of semi-private programs, it's harder to do both at once. Indeed I once summarized the juxtaposition of Free Exercise and Establishment, maybe on an exam, as "a peculiarly cruel joke.)

Martin:

Unfortunately, as Newdow proved in the last Supreme Court term, such issues are certainly not "made up," at least not for lawyers. And I guarantee you, if you ever take a Con Law course, you'd wish that this were a "made up" issue to which no one ever came. Establishment Clause jurisprudence is grim indeed.

Not intending to nit-pick or anything, but:

"... and I wouldn't start to examine the Middle East without sitting down with a Koran"

You should have rather said "sitting down with THE Koran.

Anonymous:

No, for once someone who's caught me in a "mistake" found me in an intentional one.

The Koran should only be read in the original, and I'm afraid that I don't read any Middle Eastern languages. "A Koran" was intended to imply "a copy of the Koran" or, more accurately, "a translation of the Koran."

I don't get the connection to Newdow. Isn't the O'Reilly crowd mad mostly at Macy's? The state-action doctrine always sounds a little fishy when people hear of it the first time, but it's a useful clarifier when the argument is raised that we must apply constitutional principles to private conduct.

And I think you're too dismissive of Martin's (itself dismissive) point. There's a very real sense in which we ought to wonder whether this is actually a dispute. I understand that people on the Merry-Crimmus side are quite peeved and supportive of their position, but I've never actually seen someone on the other side. I don't believe I've ever heard someone complain if someone said Merry-Crimmus instead of Hap'-Hol'dys. (My undergraduate school was something of a cartoon of p.c.-ness, so my anecdotal evidence has at least nominal weight.) Mainstream media pieces about the debate seem to recognize this (look for the "Even many liberals think...." 'graphs). And it certainly doesn't help that a lot of the... less reasoned corners of the web are full of people who think the ACLU is behind the secularization of Christmas. (You'll recall the myriad instances of the ACLU defending school children who wanted to pray or otherwise participate in their Free Exercise rights.)

Which... eh. For what it's worth. But I tend to agree with Martin that this is largely a manufactured dispute.

TtP:

I mentioned Newdow just to suggest that issues others would consider trivial otherwise get litigated. And the Merry Christmas argument is, in reality, just a smaller gripe about the general state of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, which makes it damnably difficult for the majority to express a cultural identity.

I don't know about the O'Reilly crowd. As I've mentioned before, I don't like Fox News, and don't have cable anyway. But Dionne certainly seems to be suggesting that the Establishment Clause be read in a way that I consider over-expansive.

Heh... as if having taken con law isn't already sufficient to show that "issues others would consider trivial otherwise get litigated."

I'll see your no-cable, and raise you: I don't even have a television (I'm _trying_ to say that without sounding moral-superiority-y) so I easily could be wrong. But I thought the big issue was Federated Stores appearing to move to Hap'-Hol'dys instead of Merr'Crimmus. Which makes it a private issue, and therefore Establishment isn't the source of relevant law; if anything the Civil Rights Act or something would have to provide the remedy. (Does CRA prohibit religious nonaccommodation as religious discrimination? I don't know the answer but I have a suspicion.)

I don't read Dionne as even making an argument. Roughly, it seems both patronizing and whiny to me. Some people, apparently, do think that saying Merry Christmas is imposing an intimidating religious hegemony on frightened minorities. But I've never met one of these frightened poor souls myself.

So it seems to me one of those situations where well-intentioned liberals worry for the sake of victims in their own imagination. Ah, I think it was Dennis Miller who had a bit about people who complained about the way the media frames the world. Interesting bit: The complaint requires that such media framing be both perceptible (for the person making the complaint) and irresistible (for the subjects of such person's concern), usually _im_perceptible so as to elude psychological resistance. The punchline was on the lines of, "Well, sure, I can tell what the media's trying to do, but _I've_ got a degree in semiotics from Cal State Chico!" (Well, it was funny when I heard it. Maybe you had to be there.)

So as not to lose my veneer of plausible intellectualism, I'll come back to things legal. When I read Lee v. Weisman (for those who've forgotten, Providence case---the rabbi in question came from my synogogue, actually---wherein nondenominational prayer given at a public school graduation held to violate Establishment), I agreed with the result, but I had real qualms with J. Blackmun's belief that it was necessary for him to include a lengthy discussion on the effects of such apparent government endorsement. "Even subtle pressure diminishes the right of each individual to choose voluntarily what to believe." 505 U.S. at 605 and thereabouts. For me, Establishment has always meant one thing: The government doesn't get to tell you when to pray. That's a chary formulation, but it was sufficient to decide the case before them. Engaging in the kind of harm-measurement that Blackmun was doing seems likely to redraw the standard as prohibiting only government endorsement that does, in fact, limit freedom of conscience. (Indeed our own Professor Monaghan sometimes seems as though he's fallen prey to that mistake. You'll hear if you take his First Amendment---as you should; highly recommend---him questioning the value of enforcing Establishment in what he calls Louisiana-bayou cases, where literally everyone is a member of the local faith. Consider it a kind of inquiry into standing for the Establishment context.)

And hang on a second about Establishment: It's one of the constitutional segments most likely to be understood mushily. I don't think it's difficult for the majority to express a cultural identity, as you put it; it's just unconstitutional for the majority to accomplish that through legislation. Anyone can proselytize who wants to, but you can't direct that school teachers do it on the public's dime.

Oh, and finally: The most intelligent explanation for the "Happy Holidays" phenomenon, I think, comes from Atrios: It sounds silly to say Merry Christmas on December 12th. "The Holidays" or the "Holiday Season" kind of extends from Thanksgiving through New Years, and yada yada yada.

TtP: Good point about the usefulness of "happy holidays"; having forgotten to wish friends a Merry Christmas on Dec. 25, I mass texted them "happy Kwanzaa" on the 26th. Which, incidentally, fits neatly into the seasonal scheme, beginning the day after Christmas and thus useful to practically the only English speaking country that doesn't note Boxing Day, and running right through New Year's. Also, unless you're African American, sure to make your acquantainces momentarily surprised, which is always fun :-)

And there is no moral superiority in not owning a TV. I don't, as an admission of weakness both physical and spiritual: I doubt that I could heft one home, and I don't need the distraction. But it's just a medium; you could be just as trashy in print as otherwise. Fetishization of print notwithstanding...

"You're a hopeless romantic," said Faber. "It would be funny if it were not serious. It's not books you need, it's some of the things that once were in books. The same things could be in the 'parlour families' today. The same infinite detail and awareness could be projected through the radios and televisors, but are not. No, no, it's not books at all you’re looking for! Take it where you can find it, in old phonograph records, old motion pictures, and in old friends; look for it in nature and look for it in yourself. Books were only one type of receptacle where we stored a lot of things we were afraid we might forget. There is nothing magical in them at all. The magic is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us.