incinnati attorney Richard Ganulin has lost the latest round in his courtroom effort to have the official Christmas (December 25) federal holiday overturned as a violation of the separation of church and state.

   In August, 1998, Ganulin filed suit in U.S. District Court claiming that "Christmas is a religious holiday, and the Congress of the United States is not constitutionally permitted to endorse or aid any religion, purposefully or otherwise, or entanglement between our government and religious beliefs."

   Congress granted Christmas this special status in 1870, following the lead of several state legislatures. It is now one of ten government-sanctioned holidays that include birthday celebrations for Martin Luther King and George Washington, and the recognition of Independence on July 4.

   Ganulin argued that the establishment of the December 25 date, though, "effectively endorses one set of Christian religious and Christian cultural beliefs..."

   In dismissing the suit, U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott argued that the Christmas holiday did not violate Ganulin's right to equal protection under the law. She added that "The court has found legitimate secular purposes for establishing Christmas as a legal public holiday."    "When the government decides to recognize Christmas Day as a public holiday, it does no more than accommodate the calendar of public activities to the plain fact that many Americans will expect on that day to spend time visiting with their families, attending religious services, and perhaps enjoying some respite from pre-holiday activities."

   "Ganulin and his family have the freedom to celebrate, or not celebrate, the religious and secular aspects of the holiday as they see fit," Dlott added. "The court simply does not believe that declaring Christmas to be a legal public holiday impermissibly imposes Christian beliefs on non-adherents in a way that violates the right to freedom of association."    Dlott also gave her interpretation of the "Lemon" test from LEMON v. KURTZMAN which is used widely in deciding if an action by the government violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. She opined that Christmas "has a valid secular purpose, it does not have the effect of endorsing religion in general or Christianity in particular, and it does not impermissibly cause excessive entanglement between church and state."

   Unwittingly or not, Judge Dlott trivialized both Mr. Ganulin's case, and her own ruling by including a ditty with her official written decision. It read:

The court will address
Plaintiff's seasonal confusion
Erroneously believing of Christmas
MERELY a religious intrusion

Whatever the reason
Constitutional or other
Christmas is NOT
An act of Big Brother!

Christmas is about joy
And giving and sharing
It is about the child within us
It is mostly about caring!

One is never jailed
For not having a tree
For not going to church
For not spreading glee!

The court will uphold
Seemingly contradictory causes
Decreeing "The establishment" AND "Santa"
both worthwhile "CLAUS(es)!"

We are all better for Santa
The Easter Bunny too
And maybe the great pumpkin
To name just a few!

An extra day off
Is hardly high treason
It may be spent as you wish
Regardless of reason

The court having read
The lessons of "Lynch"
refuses to play
The role of the Grinch!

There is room in this country
And in all our hearts too
For different convictions
And a day off too!

   "Lynch" refers to a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision ( LYNCH v. DONNELLY, 465 U.S. 668) where in a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld the constitutionality of a city-owned Christmas display that included a Christian nativity, Santa's house, tree, animal figures and other season symbols. Justices rejected the argument that the purpose of the display -- or the inclusion of the nativity -- conveyed a government endorsement of Christianity and religion in general. The majority expressed the opinion that instead, the holiday collage of symbols depicted "historical origins" of Christmas and served a secular purpose.

   LYNCH is said to signify a reduction in the separation of church and state, and provide instead a constitutional mandate for the "accommodation" of religious belief.

   Mr. Ganulin, a city solicitor for Cincinnati, denied that he was the "grinch" portrayed in the news media, or that he was trying to "steal Christmas" as one newspaper columnist suggested. He declared that any celebration of Christmas should be personal, and not treated as a federalized holiday.

   "The power of Congress shouldn't be used to benefit any particular sect," Ganulin told media after learning of the latest decision. "The establishment of Christmas as a national, legal public holiday by the government enhances the status of Christians in our society and diminishes the status of non-Christians."

   Ganulin added that "No other sect in the United States is so favored by the government." He argued that the federalized December 25 holiday fostered "a major symbolic link between the government and Christianity."

   This evening, Richard Ganulin told AANEWS that he has every intention of proceeding with his suit; he said that he will file his case in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and seek to overturn Judge Dlott's ruling. Ganulin said that he was distressed by both the poem and the written decision.

   "The content of the poem really misrepresents in a major way what this case was all about, and how it was presented," Ganulin said. "If you look at the first stanza, it erroneously suggests that Christmas is 'merely' religious. That's a flat admission that in part, Christmas IS religion."

   Ganulin added, "The point of the equal protection and freedom of association claims that I make in the case is that it's just not Christian religion that Congress is prohibited from establishing, but Christian culture as well. Congress should not seek to impose Christian culture or religion on the citizens of this nation in any way, and that is what is being done with a Christmas holiday."

   Media is also playing on the poem, ignoring style and triviality over substance, he said.

   "That's easy to do. They'll take the poem and run with it, and continue to exploit the 'grinch' theme that I want to steal Christmas and stop people from celebrating. This is really misleading, I'm not trying to stop the celebration of Christmas. I just don't think it should be a federally mandated holiday."

   Ganulin added that he has spent "lots of time and expended lots of energy on the case." So far, he has managed to do all of it on his spare time, and without the support of any committee or group. He added that the Christian Coalition filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief against his suit.

   He also remains undaunted. Does he have any doubts or second thoughts about taking up such a seemingly unpopular legal fight?

   "No, not really. I know that the celebration of Christmas on December 25 is unmistakably a Christian celebration. What becomes frustrating is having so many people try to mischaracterize its Christian status."

   He adds that there are "many people who understand the importance of the issue," even though groups and organizations may not want to get involved. "Institutions are generally timid," Ganulin observed," and this is a pretty unpopular case. But I know that there is also a lot of support from non-Christians."

[text only]