Ivan Seeking said:
A local merchant was telling me how proud he was that he had posted a Merry Christmas sign on the side of his building, along a busy street. He was quite proud of himself but was worried about the potential for legal backlash.
"I don't care what the government says!", he exclaimed. ~ "If I want to say 'Merry Christmas' instead of 'Happy Holidays', then I will [expletive expletive expletive].
Does anyone see the problem here?
To gain a better understanding of this concept, I'd avoid Wikipedia and most commentaries on this, as almost all seem to reflect an agenda opposite to that of Jefferson's letter.
Instead, I would recommend you read copies of the letters themselves, beginning with the
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html" (from the Library of Congress).
Having read both letters, my take on the problem in Ivan's scenario is that the shopkeeper errantly believes the government has any legal authority over any religious symbols he chooses to display in, on, or outside his store (so long as it's on his property).
The greater problem is that First Amendment rights are seriously misunderstood by most these days, as is the "separation of church and state" myth. I use the term "myth" as Jefferson's letter of reassurance to the Danbury Baptist Church was never meant to limit any expression religious belief, but to reassure them that the government will keep it's nose out of religious business altogether.
Key to this is our First Amendment's "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the part which all branches of our local, state, and federal governments usually ignore in their attempts at limit any religious display. By attempting to limit religious displays, they're actions are 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the principle which Jefferson established in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church.
ETA: Upon reading your other entries, Ivan, I see the problem you do, in that the shopkeeper has a bone to pick, even after it's been made aware there's no bone. Sadly, I've seen bodies of people, even entire countries, and certainly message forums, fall prey to this rather odd human quirk. I'm sure it has its roots somewhere in our evoluntary history, perhaps in a group's version of "once-bitten, twice shy" and as a means of ensuring that the group err on the side of eliminating all who might undermine the group in some way, even if it means eliminating many who're merely insightful or different.
In fact, when I explained that the law doesn't apply to him or any private party, he got mad.
