Words have multiple definitions. By the definition and reasoning which lead you to classify Santa Claus as a religious symbol, you would also have to classify Christmas trees as a religious symbol. Which, in popular usage, it certainly isn't. Furthermore if it came to a court of law, it wouldn't be as well.

Splitting linguistic hairs to come to a wrong conclusion about how courts will decide something is pointless. The courts will decide as they decide. Ours is not to tell them how they should intend their language. It is to understand what they did intend, regardless of how much we argue with how it was put.

Furthermore you can drop the non-sequitor. Yes, I'm talking about:

Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree.

Since you seem to be missing the boat, Norm asked about what was discussed at [link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#7|http://caselaw.lp.fi...dment01/04.html#7]. That turns out to be the legality of the placement of symbols with possible religious significance in courthouses. We are not comparing and contrasting between their right to put up such a symbol in a court and the right of government to order you to do it. We are contrasting between why a creche was allowed at one courthouse, while at a second courthouse the creche was not allowed but a menorah was.

Now questions of what underlies this may seem to be splitting hairs. And it is. Unless it is the legal system that you live under, and you wish to understand it (as inane as it might be).

So if you're not interested in the topic, ignore the discussion. You don't live here, after all. But if you do participate, I'd appreciate it if you at least try to figure out what we're discussing.

Regards,
Ben