Christmas Trees or Holiday Trees?
KARE 11 reports:
Chuck Samuelson of the Minnesota ACLU says efforts to secularize Christmas are simply a nod to the fact that many citizens of the nation are not Christian, “The state adopting a policy to not endorse a religion, Christianity over Islam or Judaism or atheism.” The courts have already ruled that publicly owned displays cannot endorse a specific religion, but have said that Christmas trees are not necessarily religious symbols.
“The court has said that Christmas as a term and as a concept is a holiday with both secular and religious aspects. So just calling it Christmas in and of itself does not make it a religious statement,” said University of St. Thomas professor Tom Berg. A statement many Christians might not agree with.
The legal issues here are very important, but most Christians may be unaware of them. If a “Christmas” Tree really were fundamentally Christian in nature (which seems to be the premise behind the passionate defense of the name), then this makes it a Christian religious display — and if it occurs on its own, then it’s an impermissible endorsement of Christianity.
The only way to salvage the constitutionality of a lone “Christmas” tree display is for it to have a significant secular component — for the tree not to be inherently and inevitably Christian in nature. Of course, is that’s the case, then renaming the tree to a “Holiday” tree isn’t a sign of hostility towards Christianity because the tree isn’t fundamentally Christian to begin with — it’s just a popular symbol which Christians have happened to have been using, but which others use as well.
This places Christians engaged in the so-called Christmas Wars in a difficult position. They can either continue as they are, thereby creating the ammunition necessary to get rid of lone Christmas Tree displays completely, or they can stop acting like the trees are inherently Christian and allow the name changes to go forward — thus preserving the displays, but also allowing the connection between the trees and their religion to be reduced even more. The same is true of other government-sponsored holiday celebrations, like Christms Parades for example. Neither option will likely be greeted with enthusiasm.
Read More:
Comments
I just came across this column and I know it is a couple of years old. Just had to speak my mind. The government allowing Christmas displays is not an endorsement of Christianity. It may be an endorsement of this nation’s heritage which should be embraced. Freedom of religion was never meant to prevent the government from allowing “the people”, including those who serve on government, to express there religious attachments. It was simply meant to prevent the government from specifically persecuting those with other religious affiliations. If this is a government of the people, then if the majority would like to display Christian displays (the predominant religion of this country), then it should be allowed and embraced. If there are those who do not participate in such celebrations, then let them go about their way and not be bothered. As well those people should allow the predominant Christian population to go about their way and express themselves. This trend that this country is moving towards is neutering out our very own culture. We are the only country in the world that is fighting within itself to stifle our heritage and culture. WE EVEN celebrate other countries’ traditions and heritage while at the very same time being taught to be ashamed of our own. We are not perfect and never will be. Preventing our religious heritage from being expressed will push us further from perfection. But for certain, we will be the most uninteresting country on Earth if we continue to allow the systematic washing away of our culture and religious heritage. Our Forefathers believed that this country was worth fighting for. If we do not now take a stand and fight for it, it will be lost from within and will fade away into history like so many great societies before us.
Pitts Bellinger
Goose Creek, South Carolina
If we’re talking about allowing displays that are owned and maintained by private citizens, then you are correct. If we’re talking about displays that are chosen, designed, owned, and maintained by the government, then you are wrong.
Endorsements of religious beliefs cannot be excused by pretending that it’s only an endorsement of “heritage.”
When a person is acting as an officer of the state, then they are limited in what they can do. Private religious freedom does not extend to official acts of state. A government employee can express their religious beliefs when on their own time and when acting as private citizens; they cannot do so when on government time and acting as a representative of the state.
It is wrong to think that anything approved of by a simple majority is also therefore right, appropriate, and justified.
It’s rather arrogant to think that American “culture” is defined by Christianity like that. Eliminating official government endorsement, support, or promotion of Christian beliefs will not “neuter” American culture because there is quite a lot more to American culture than your religion.
There is so much wrong with this statement, it is hard to know where to begin.
“The government allowing Christmas displays is not an endorsement of Christianity.”
Oh really? Would you feel the same way about Buddist displays on public property at public expense?
“Freedom of religion was never meant to prevent the government from allowing “the people”, including those who serve on government, to express there religious attachments.” Well, yes but in order to respect the constitution which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” It requires that those in office do not use the office to promote their particular beliefs, be they christian, buddist, jewish, etc.
“We are the only country in the world that is fighting within itself to stifle our heritage and culture” Nonsense. The culture is growing and changing as it has in the past as different groups of immigrants, persons with different ideas and beliefs come in. With them comes the challenge of new ideas, a broadening of perspective and understanding of other cultures. It is what makes America great. It is also the only way to survive in a global economy.
“…while being taught to be ashamed of our own.” If being exposed to other ideas, cultures, heritages causes this reaction, that speaks for itself.
“If we do not now take a stand and fight for it..” Fight? How? and exactly what? Fight against new and different ideas? Differing beliefs? Perhaps fight against an America which would allow all these different beliefs, ideas to exist along side and possibly challenge the old original ones? Great societies which have collapsed in the past have done so because they turned in on themselves and failed to meet the challenge of new ideas. Stagnation and decay is the result. I think you feel the threat of new ideas and they are threatening. They force us to examine ourselves and our beliefs and that is painful. But any growth always is.
I’m all for diversity… teach the controversy… require two nativity scenes… one depicting Luke’s version… the other, Matthew’s version… then people could decide which one was the true god inspired one…