Having Christmas decorations on the little town square is not state sponsorship of religion, nor is it in any way, shape, or form a move towards theocracy. Do you even know what a theocracy is?State sponsorship of displays for just one religion WOULD be moving towards theocracy.
It's no different than if the government were to censor free speech in a way that most people agree with. Or to search and seize property that most people agree with. They're all unconstitutional, even if it seems harmless.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
Theocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The government publicly endorsing the Christian religion by dedicating public space during the annual holiest day is establishing a religion and a step towards establishing a theocracy.
And if this practice is soooooo unconstitutional, why hasn't the SCOTUS shut that **** down?
Here, I got you something for Winter Solstice.
As for SCOTUS shutting it down, it has. That's why we're discussing the woman attacking the Satanic display. Because in order to stay within the Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, you have to allow all religious views access if you allow one. It's either Christmas displays plus Satanic ones, or no Christmas displays at all.