There's overreaction… and then there's a Seth Abramson overreaction.
On Christmas Day, the Department of Homeland Security posted a simple holiday greeting that managed to detonate a small internet riot:
Within minutes, accusations began flying that DHS had violated the Constitution, trampled the separation of church and state, and betrayed America's founding ideals.
The most theatrical response came from self-styled "Trump biographer" Seth Abramson, whose reply is a masterclass in rhetorical overreach.
From an historically literate standpoint, this reaction is wildly irresponsible.
To be fair, one can reasonably (even if not rightly) argue that in a pluralistic society, a federal agency using explicitly Christian language is unwise, imprudent, or unnecessarily provocative. Christians themselves should be capable of that kind of prudential judgment. But "unconstitutional?" Not even remotely.
And yet, Abramson continued foaming at the mouth in righteous indignation:
Historically speaking, religious language fits squarely within the American tradition - dating back to the days of the men who actually wrote that Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, so often invoked as the high priest of secularism, himself attended Christian worship services held in the halls of Congress. George Washington routinely invoked divine providence in official proclamations. John Adams spoke freely and openly of Christianity's role in sustaining the republic's moral framework, and he did so in his official capacity as president. None believed they were violating the First Amendment.
Moreover, this isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a partisan issue. Modern Democrat president have spoken this way in official declarations.
Here was Barack Obama's final Christmas announcement from the White House on December 23, 2016:
Tomorrow, for the final time as the First Family, we will join our fellow Christians around the world to rejoice in the birth of our Savior. And as we retell His story from that Holy Night, we'll also remember His eternal message, one of boundless love, compassion and hope.
Here was Bill Clinton exactly 19 years before:
The beloved Christmas story itself is a story of light for, as the Gospel of John tells us, Jesus came into the world as 'the true light' that illumines all humankind.
(Apparently, the Republic survived such observations.)
The confusion here lies in the failure to distinguish between government establishment of religion and government acknowledgment of religion. The First Amendment forbids the former, not the latter. There is no national church being created, no compulsory worship, no religious test for citizenship. A Christmas greeting acknowledging the truth of its foundations does none of those things.
The real issue here isn't constitutional law, but discomfort with Christianity occupying any public space at all.
Calling a Christmas greeting from one of hundreds of executive agencies "anti-American" tells us far more about our current cultural climate and ideological anxieties than it does about the Constitution.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Not the Bee or any of its affiliates.
