Can't Christmas just be Christmas?

Does one of Christendom's holiest of days, which has already devolved in many circles into generic "The Holidays," also have to become a battleground over the separation of church and state every single year, and seemingly at every turn?

Sadly, that's the way it is in Manchester.

Selectmen have rejected a request from First Parish Church to present a live re-enactment of the Nativity on the Town Common for about an hour on Christmas Eve, between a family service at 5 p.m. and a second service starting at 7 p.m.

Selectmen said the display might cause legal problems for the town, and also said the church hadn't provided enough details.

On that second count, they have a good point. Nobody from the church even showed up to explain what was planned or to answer questions.

But Selectmen Chairwoman Susan Thorne's statement that, "some of us thought it was inappropriate to allow a religious display on the Town Common," is hard to figure in this case, for a number of reasons.

First, it's not as if the church is looking to parade the display through local streets to the Town Common. The church sits on the common. Except for about two feet surrounding the building's foundation, it is surrounded by town property. So, while it is true that the display would be on town property, it also amounts to the church's front lawn. That shouldn't be forgotten in all of this.

Every time parishioners walk across the Town Common to enter the church, they are arguably presenting a religious display, simply through the act of going to church. Should that be forbidden? Should it be illegal for them to carry Bibles in plain view? After all, somebody might be offended.

Second, allowing a religious display in front of a church for an hour is no more a violation of church and state than the existence of the church itself.

Ironically, this church building, which has stood on the site since 1809, was once owned by the town, and used for political, social and religious — yes religious — gatherings.

Were the town's leaders from two centuries ago threatening the separation of church and state? Obviously not.

Look, the Constitution does not forbid any kind of religious utterances or displays on public property. It forbids government from establishing a church.

This proposed living Nativity display would not establish a state religion. It wouldn't even imply a state endorsement of a religion. The town would not be sponsoring, presenting or contributing money to the Nativity scene. It would only show some government tolerance for a religion. And isn't tolerance one of the highest principles our society is supposed to defend?

In this case, any worries that this will set a dangerous precedent are overblown.

In terms of precedent, consider that Rockport's annual Nativity pageant carries through town streets. And, lest we forget, the centerpiece for Gloucester's St. Peter's Fiesta each June is an outdoor altar that, on the final day, is home to a Sunday Mass delivered by Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Archdiocese of Boston — all on St. Peter's Square property actually owned by the city.

Permitting First Parish to present the Nativity scene for about an hour does not mean every other religion would be guaranteed the Town Common as a venue; let's face it, no other houses of worship are located on the common.

Town officials certainly have a right and responsibility to limit religious displays on public property. But in a case such as this — where the church really just wants to use a limited piece of front-lawn space that happens to be owned by the town — they can certainly be allowed. That should be fundamental to a pluralistic, tolerant society.

This church request seems more than reasonable, at least to reasonable people.