I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the 30-year practice of the City of Los Angeles in arranging the window blinds, or illuminating the windows, of the city hall tower in the form of a cross on Christmas Eve, Christmas night and Easter violates neither the United States nor the California Constitution.
Plaintiff sued as a “private attorney general,” complaining initially that the display was to occur on a single night, namely, Christmas Eve, December 24, 1975, but documents attached to the complaint refer to council approval of the display on December 24 and 25, 1975, as a “special event.”
The precise charging allegations of the complaint are that the . “resolution” offends “Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution, which provides in part, ‘Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed .... The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ....’” The complaint continues, “Said resolution [s/c] also violates the establishment clauses' of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” The prayer of the complaint is revealing. In addition to her attorney’s fees she seeks to restrain the city and its board of public works “from lighting a single bar cross on or in City Hall or any other municipal building or structure in the City of Los Angeles, commencing immediately; in the alternative, the City of Los Angeles should be ordered to light on the City Hall any religious symbol of any religion when a demand is expressed by any member of such religion.” Plaintiff, judged by the prayer of her complaint, would be quite content, and the suit presumably may be dismissed, if the city illuminates any religious symbol upon demand. She *814alleges neither that any such demand has ever been made nor, having been made, that it has ever been denied.
The case was submitted on the pleadings and seven declarations, those of plaintiff and of her attorney, and those made on behalf of the defendant city by five of its employees. The factual record, gleaned exclusively from the declarations, is exceedingly thin. Plaintiff’s declarations, largely conclusionaiy, may be summarized. She alleged that the “Resolution and the actual lighting of the cross on City Hall is in violation of my constitutional rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, inter alia, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,’ as well as in violation of my rights under California Constitution Article 1, § 4.” She further averred that the city’s resolution, and the lighting, “also affects my rights as a taxpayer, since the funds used to provide the lighting called for by said resolution would be derived from City Tax Dollars.”
Defendant countered with declarations of city officials which stated that the purpose for the display of the cross on Christmas Eve, Christmas night and Easter was “not in religious tribute, but more in a spirit of peace and good fellowship toward all mankind.” The reason for the display during the evening hours prior to Eastern Orthodox Easter was as a “further symbol of the spirit of peace and good fellowship toward all mankind on an inter-faith basis, particularly toward the eastern nations in Europe.”
Defendant’s supporting declarations further reveal that the arranging of the window blinds has continued for 30 years or more; the display’s estimated annual cost to the city for 1975 was $103; the period of time involved in the illumination at Christmas was during the 12 evening hours of Decémber 24 and 25, and at Easter of each year, a total of approximately 36 hours; more recently a group of Orthodox Christians had requested similar illumination on the eve of Orthodox Easter and this was granted; no other religious groups had ever made any similar requests but two charitable organizations, the heart and Easter seal funds, had requested and had been granted display of their respective symbols during charitable drives, a practice that is not challenged in this action; there was no evidence that the city had ever denied any similar requests to anyone; there was no evidence that in the 30 years of practice any particular religious impact, special or general, had been experienced, or that any member of the public or of any particular group, religious or otherwise, had been offended, misled, distracted, or disturbed by the *815display, nor had any such person, group or organization complained of the practice.
Against this factual background the majority’s constitutional argument may be examined. The majority, citing a “panoply of views” expressed in various opinions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting both the establishment and the free exercise clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, elects to place its holding upon the substantially identical provisions of the California Constitution (art. I, § 4). Given the similarity in language between the state and federal provisions, the same general standards should apply. (Accord Mandel v. Hodges (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 596, 616 (127 Cal.Rptr. 244].)
In its most recent application of the establishment clause, Wolman v. Walter (1977) 433 U.S. 229 [53 L.Ed.2d 714, 97 S.Ct. 2593], the members of the high court, while expressing various opinions regarding the ultimate result of the case before them, expressed no disagreement whatever as to the applicable standards: “The mode of analysis for Establishment Clause questions is defined by the three-part test that has emerged from the Court’s decisions. In order to pass muster, a statute must have a secular legislative purpose, must have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. See Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Bd. 426 U.S. 736, 748 [49 L.Ed.2d 179, 96 S.Ct. 2337]; Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 772-773 [37 L.Ed.2d 948, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2965-2966]; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612, 613 [29 L.Ed.2d 745, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111] (1971).” (433 U.S. at pp. 235-236 [53 L.Ed.2d at pp. 724-725, 97 S.Ct. at p. 2599].) The foregoing tripartite test is now well established for determining whether a particular governmental action founders on the establishment clause, and I apply these analytical measures to the city’s action in the case before us.
1. Secular Purpose
The prior reports of the city council and its public works committee reveal that the stated purposes were to symbolize the general holiday season, in a “spirit of peace and good fellowship toward all mankind on an interfaith basis . . . .” The display was coincident with installation of strings of colored lights, Christmas trees, and other ornaments in public buildings. Under these circumstances it seems to me readily apparent that the general purpose was secular and probably twofold in nature: (1) to promote a general spirit of peace, warmth, good fellowship, and good will *816during what has become a traditional holiday period, characterized by the exchange of gifts and greeting cards and general secular festivity, and (2) to provide an attractive and relatively inexpensive decoration for the city hall tower to accompany the bright exterior lighting of adjacent and nearby buildings. While some of the intended tranquility, harmony, and good will, very unfortunately, may have been dissipated by the rancor and rhetoric of the present litigation, I find nothing in the factual record, or in any of the circumstances of which we may take judicial notice, which prevents us from accepting at face value the intended purposes expressed by the city officials. Certainly, there is nothing before us which indicates, even indirectly, that the city council had an undisclosed purpose or secret, conspiratorial plan to promote or advance a particular religion. We can fairly assume that it acted in complete good faith over many years.
As the majority acknowledges, the courts of other states have approved displays comparable to the cross at issue. (Ante, p. 795, and cases cited.) A recent case, helpful in understanding the term “secular purpose,” involves the erection of a large permanent cross on public property in Oregon as a memorial to war veterans. (Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. City of Eugene (1976) 276 Ore. 1007 [558 P.2d 338].) The Eugene court reasoned, “Conceding that a large Latin cross is a religious symbol, it has been uniformly held that in determining the validity of the display of either a cross or a nativity scene on public property, the controlling question is not whether a cross or nativity scene is a religious symbol, but whether the purpose of its display is religious or secular. Thus, the requirement of [secular] ‘purpose’ is satisfied by displays of nativity scenes on public property in connection with the Christmas season as a secular festival or pageant. Indeed, permanent displays of crosses and other religious monuments on public property have been uniformly held valid . . . even when displayed in connection with a secular festival or event.” (P. 346, italics added, fns. omitted.)
I believe that the foregoing analysis of Eugene is sound, even when applied to a permanent display. A fortiori, it seems to me applicable to the temporary, decorative display of a cross to commemorate an important holiday season. Christmas, by veiy definition has obvious religious characteristics, but it has become, by general acceptance, an important secular festival as well. It is recognized by law as an official state holiday. (Gov. Code, §§ 6700, 18025.) In terms of business and community life, Christmas has developed strong, some say too strong, secular overtones. We depart from important precedent when we reject, on the barren *817transcript before us, the reasons which local officials gave for their action. (City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768, 777 [122 Cal.Rptr. 543, 537 P.2d 375]; State of California v. Superior Court (Veta) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 258 [115 Cal.Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281].) Moreover, we seriously err when we interrupt a local civic practice which is within the area of appropriate political discretion and judgment vested in local public officials.
2. Principal or Primary Effect
Apart from its secular purpose, was the principal or primary effect of the display of the holiday cross one which either promotes or inhibits religion? Undoubtedly not.
There is nothing whatever before us to show that the display had any effect, temporary or permanent, good, bad, or indifferent. The display stirred no visible passions for or against. Its impact, culturally, theologically, philosophically, or socially, was undisclosed. The 30-year practice has passed unchallenged either by the general public, or by any individuals or groups, religious or otherwise. Far from generating controversy, the display seems to have been received by the public either with favor in the spirit of the holiday season, or with general passive indifference or apathy. This fact prompted the majority of the Court of Appeal herein, quite properly, to observe, “The conclusion is inescapable that if the challenged custom really conferred a measurable benefit upon religion, members of various sects and faiths would either have expressed a desire for equal recognition and aid, or in the alternative, lodged their objection to practice of prejudicial sovereign endorsement . . . . [Wjhatever benefits conferred by that custom are so remote and inconsequential that any threat posed to the First Amendment is hypothetical at best.”
The record discloses that only two organizations sought display of similar symbolic expressions. They were both granted equal treatment. These were the heart symbol of the Heart Fund and the cross symbol of the Easter Seal Society. It is difficult to conclude that any preference is worked until the city has both received and rejected similar applications from someone.
It seems to me almost self-evident that the record before us discloses no “principal or primary effect” of the city’s action on anybody, much less any effect which may fairly be interpreted as either promoting or *818inhibiting religion. The evidence is entirely to the contrary. With the majority of the Court of Appeal, I would have thought that if the practice had the principal or primaiy effect of either promoting one religion or inhibiting others, it would have been reasonable to have expected in the course of 30 years the surfacing of some manifestation of that fact by complaints, petitions, or objections from someone. If we inquire, what does the record disclose as to the principal or primary effect which the display of the cross had on millions of people in the largest metropolitan area in California over a period of 30 years, the answer is a thundering silence. The record before us totally fails to demonstrate that the display either encouraged or inhibited any particular religion in the Los Angeles area or anywhere else.
3. Excessive Government Entanglement with Religion
The display at issue herein cannot be said, reasonably, to foster an “excessive entanglement by government with religion.” The United States Supreme Court in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1973) 413 U.S. 756 [37 L.Ed.2d 948, 93 S.Ct. 2955], declared that it is well established “that not every law that confers an ‘indirect,’ ‘remote,’ or ‘incidental,’ benefit upon religious institutions is, for that reason alone, constitutionally invalid. [Citations.]” (P. 771 [37 L.Ed.2d p. 962].) The high court noted that among the “primary” evils against which the establishment clause was intended to protect, are “ ‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.’ [Citations.]” (Id., at p. 772 [37 L.Ed.2d at p. 962].) In the case at hand the city did not enmesh itself in any religious program or favor any ecclesiastical organization.
As previously noted the lighted display of the cross involved an estimated expense of $103 annually. While the record does not reflect the size of the annual budget of Los Angeles, I believe it fair to conclude that the ratio of $103 to the budget may sink from minimal to infinitesimal. No claim is made that the practice interfered with any governmental operations or activities. This fact clearly distinguishes this case from Mandel v. Hodges, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 596, in which releasing state employees for three hours on Good Friday was held to be an unconstitutional practice for it resulted in the virtual closing of certain state offices during office hours at a cost, statewide, of approximately $818,000 per hour.
*819Not only in terms of the funding involved but in the temporal aspects of the display as well, the city’s action herein was minimal. This is not the permanent fixed installation of a cross such as was permitted in Eugene. Of the 365 days in the entire year, we are concerned only with the evening hours of 4 days. The case does not represent a religious benefit, preference, gain or advantage of any constitutional significance. Los Angeles has neither “excessively entangled itself with religion,” nor imposed any “irreparable injury” upon plaintiff or others which would warrant injunctive intervention.
Beyond the immediate issues of the present case, however, I believe that the majority has adopted an analysis which is much too constricted and narrow in describing the proper relationship between the state and religion. While I agree with the majority’s insistence that the state must assume a “position of neutrality” (ante, p. 798), I confess that I do not understand what is meant by the phrase “to be neutral surely means to honor the beliefs of the silent as well as the vocal minorities,” for I do not know what those “beliefs” are. In my opinion we must “honor” and respect both the beliefs and the unbeliefs of the majority as well as the minorities. More importantly, however, the majority chooses to ignore a substantial body of law which has developed on the issue of “neutrality.” A much more accurate, and constitutionally more current and acceptable, description of the posture of government vis-a-vis religion is one of “accommodating” or “benevolent” neutrality. (See Kurland, The Supreme Court, Compulsory Education, and the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses (1973) 75 West Va. L.Rev. 213, 237; Note, Constitutional Law-Religious Exercises and the Public Schools (1967) 20 Ark.L.Rev. 320, 325; Note, The Constitutionality of the 1972 Amendment to Title VII’s Exemption for Religious Organizations (1975) 73 Mich.L.Rev. 538, 551; see also Justice Douglas in Zorach v. Clauson (1952) 343 U.S. 306, 313 [96 L.Ed. 954, 961-962, 72 S.Ct. 679]; Chief Justice Burger, Walz v. Tax Commission (1970) 397 U.S. 664 [25 L.Ed.2d 697, 90 S.Ct. 1409].)
In Roemer v. Maryland Public Works Bd. (1976) 426 U.S. 736, 745-746 [49 L.Ed.2d 179, 186-188, 96 S.Ct. 2337], Justice Blackmun recently described the neutrality of the state’s position as “scrupulous,” but added, referring to church and state, that “a hermetic separation of the two is an impossibility it has never required.” The Delaware Supreme Court in considering application of the establishment clause, described the principle in this manner: “The Establishment cases decided by the United States Supreme Court indicate that neutrality is the safe harbor in which to avoid First Amendment violations: neutral ‘accommodation’ of *820religion is permitted [citations] while ‘promotion’ and ‘advancement’ of religion are not. [Citations.]” (Keegan v. University of Delaware (Del. 1975) 349 A.2d 14, 16, cert. den., 424 U.S. 934 [47 L.Ed.2d 342, 96 S.Ct. 1148].)
On principle, the “neutral” approach of government to religion should be understood as a detached, accommodating, accepting and benevolent posture lest “strict” neutrality be construed as hostility. Justice Douglas amplified this concept in Zorach insisting that the state should “accommodate” religion, and “To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe . . . . But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.” (Zorach, supra, 343 U.S. at p. 314 [96 L.Ed. at p. 962].) Justice Goldberg expressed a very similar view in Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (1963) 374 U.S. 203 [10 L.Ed.2d 844, 83 S.Ct. 1560] (conc. opn.), by cautioning against any impression that strict neutrality meant hostility, urging that “untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it.” (P. 306 [10 L.Ed.2d at pp. 905-906].)
In its role of “neutrality,” while government may not advocate, advance, or sponsor religion or religious influence, it can and should accommodate religion and need be neither hostile nor inhospitable to it.
The analysis, as so frequently in the law, reduces itself to questions of degree. The United States Supreme Court in Walz v. Tax Commission, supra, 397 U.S. 664, put the matter this way: “We must also be sure that the end result—the effect—is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . the questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.” (Pp. 674-675 [25 L.Ed.2d pp. 704-705], italics added.) The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, echoed the same principle in Allen v. Hickel (D.C.Cir. 1970) 424 *821F.2d 944, in discussing the relationship of the state and religion: “The applicable rule may fairly be stated thus: The Government may depict objects with spiritual content, but it may not promote or give its stamp of approval to such spiritual content.... The duty of the courts is to strike the proper balance. The area is a sensitive one, involving questions of degree. The question is not whether there is any religious effect at all, but rather whether that effect, if present, is substantial.” (Pp. 948-949, italics added.) This is a sensible rule.
I do not believe that the record before us supports a conclusion that the degree of government involvement in religion is substantial or that by its practice the City of Los Angeles became “excessively entangled” in religion. Chief Justice Burger reminds us of a principle which may be fairly invoked at this point, “Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality . . . .” (Walz, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 669 [25 L.Ed.2d at p. 702], italics added.) In the matter before us, the circumstances of the very small expense involved, the rarity and extreme brevity of the display, its concurrence with traditional and festive secular as well as religious holidays, the absence of any record of an adverse impact on those of other religious faiths or on those of no faiths at all during the very extended period of the practice, in combination, all lead me to conclude that the government action was not excessive, but was actually minimal indeed. The practice in question falls very easily within the “room for play” permitted to local government. There is also room for mutual charity and tolerance. In this area, neither the federal nor the state Constitution requires total sterility.
The question has been put—how should the council reply to requests for displays of other symbols by other groups? Significantly, that issue has not arisen in 30 years and it is not before us now. However, the more direct response is, why should not the city council respond favorably? In doing so, reasonably, it would be recognizing, not advocating, some of the deepest impulses and strongly held beliefs of many of its citizens. A public entity controlled by principles of common sense, reason, and fairplay should have some leeway in this area, mindful always of the wise admonition of Justice Brandéis that “we must be ever on our guard lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles.” To plaintiif’s further warning that “The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent” the answer is, if there is a constitutional leak here it is exceedingly slow in developing. The rhetoric is not matched by the record.
*822The rich tapestiy of our national life contains many interweaving threads of which one of the oldest and strongest is t]ie religious faith of our people. The fabric contains multiple and diverse strands of profession, belief and practice. The influence of religion on the American consciousness is, at once, pervasive, historic, and beneficent. Were we to attempt, on misguided constitutional grounds, to effect a total and complete insulation of government from all religious influence and symbolism, we would have commenced no small undertaking. We would, to cite but a veiy few random examples, delete the reference to the Deity in the Preamble to our California Constitution, erase the likeness of George Washington at prayer from our postage stamps, remove the Biblical description of the Creator from the face of the current state telephone directory, strike the expression “In God We Trust” from all of our currency, sandblast the term “Anno Domini” from the very cornerstone of the public building in which these opinions are written, and muffle the prayer, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court” which convenes the only court to which our judgment may be appealed.
We should, more profitably, focus on the precise constitutional claim before us, and measure, in the light of the record before us, the degree, if any, of defendant’s involvement in religion. If we do so, fairly and objectively, no basis will appear for plaintiff’s contention that her “free exercise and enjoyment of religion” has been impaired, or that “The Legislature [has made any] law respecting an establishment of religion.” Plaintiff has alleged no significant interference with her constitutional rights and we should say so.
The primary inquiry raised by plaintiff’s private attorney general attack is whether the degree of government’s involvement in religion can reasonably be said to be “substantial” or “excessive.” I do not find it so in the case before us.
I would reverse the judgment.