Bring on the Decorations! Tree Ban is Overturned (Reston: title, courthouse)

[perries]

Originally Posted by Yankeesfan

But then environmentalists will protest the use of electricity! Al Gore needs all the electricity to power his mansions!

You so deserve a reputation point for this, but I've got to spread it around more first. J'ai regret!

One big reason is that putting up a tree is not about plugging in a decoration. It's about a group of people getting together, having cocoa and working on a project together.

And eating holiday cookies, don't forget that.

[normie]

Ready for a rant?

The thing that gets me is the people who provoke situations like this in the first place tend to be people who have just recently moved here. They also tend to be the same people who gripe about how "sterile" it is and how there aren't enough local traditions or community events.

Talk about hypocrites--they destroy whatever local traditions they come across because they're sooooo sensitive. And, of course, they think it's more important to appease their sensitivities than to allow annual events to continue--because god knows having people put pretty lights on a tree is an earth-shattering offensive sight. Everything must be made pc to conform with the way things were done in Portland or Berkeley or whatever town they left behind. Then (of course) they gripe some more about "awful" it is that we have no local customs. The rest of us then have to waste time and money debating it. Ridiculous!

Okay, rant over.

[Carlingtonian]

I'm not from Portland or Berkeley. I'm from North Texas. And I think it's fine if you want to display a Christmas tree, menorah, manger scene or whatever on your own private property.

But public property is another story. Not everyone is a Christian. We live in a pluralistic society. A democracy where one person's right to worship one way (or not at all) is no more and no less protected than another's. Men have died protecting that right, and it is sacred.

A Christmas tree is in fact a symbol of a religion; it may have been borrowed from the pagans 800 years ago, but it's part of the celebration of the birth of Christ. Government facilities and public accommodations should not favor one religion over another--or religion over the absence thereof.

But for the Christians here, here's a larger issue to consider:

If you are arguing that Christmas is now so universally observed in the US (via trees, carols, greetings, gift giving) that it has ceased to have any religious significance, is that a good thing?

What I mean is: I see a growing trend toward treating Christmas not as a very religious observance of the birth of Christ but as a broad social celebration devoid of religious significance--so much so that a lot of people think wishing a stranger or coworker "Merry Christmas" has no presumption of beliefs behind it.

Yet those same people would never presume so much as to wish the same person a happy Easter. Because Easter is what Christmas used to be. Easter is still a private, religious observance of a religious event (the resurrection of Christ), whereas Christmas has, for a lot of people, come to mean gift giving, being off work for a week, Jingle Bells--all the secular trappings that many non-religious people (and even religious non-Christians) participate in, at least passively.

I actually love the most religious Christmas songs--God Rest Ye, Silent Night, etc. I like Christmas lights on people's houses. I love Christmas trees. Even fruitcake--except for those weird green things. But when we as a society allow (or force) the broad adoption of Christmas by the public at large, especially in public accommodations, something is lost, and it's not just the idea of faith neutrality in government.

[normie]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

If you are arguing that Christmas is now so universally observed in the US (via trees, carols, greetings, gift giving) that it has ceased to have any religious significance, is that a good thing?

As far as I'm concerned it never had much religious significance anyway so if it ceases to have religious significance why should I care? A tree is not a crucifix or a statue of Mary or some other blatantly religious symbol. The only thing that is "religious" about a Christmas tree is that the word "Christmas" is attached to it.

Also, this isn't about what is or is not universally observed in the US. This is about a town's annual tradition, which happens to be decorating a tree in a particularly pretty spot. And until all this fluffer-nutter got started it was not a religious ceremony, any more than putting up snowmen, penguins, or Santa Claus would be religious. It was nothing more than a pretty sight to see when the weather got dreary. And a lighted tree looks elegant and classy, a lot better than putting up a giant Santa. (Besides, a giant Santa gives the wrong message in a recession.)

[normie]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

A Christmas tree is in fact a symbol of a religion; it may have been borrowed from the pagans 800 years ago, but it's part of the celebration of the birth of Christ.

I think it's going out on a limb to argue that a tree is a symbol of religion. A pine tree is not used during the religious ceremony. And as you note, the roots of this tradition (decorating a tree) are pagan. Also, tree decorations branch out in many holiday directions such as Halloween. So, IMO, this argument has more bark than bite to it.

OK enough with the puns, they're starting to needle me. And they're sappy. OK, now I'm done. Here's my basic argument:

To me, thinking a pine tree is some big Christian symbol is as logical as thinking shoes are a Christian symbol. Think about it... people wear shoes to church, and have worn shoes to church for hundreds of years. Many people get a new pair of shoes for Christmas. Christ himself probably wore shoes! Therefore (following the logic), because shoes are worn inside a church and have been given as Christmas presents, that means shoes have become a symbol of a religion. And thus nobody should be allowed to wear shoes to a public building.

Does that make sense? No. And neither does thinking a pine tree is some sort of major Christian symbol just because it happens to be called a Christmas tree.

[cdmurphy]

It's not just about the Christmas tree. If I understand correctly, the vote allows for 10 displays, first-come, first-served. So yes, there can be other non-Christmas-specific holiday displays.

[normie]

Originally Posted by cdmurphy

It's not just about the Christmas tree. If I understand correctly, the vote allows for 10 displays, first-come, first-served. So yes, there can be other non-Christmas-specific holiday displays.

Exactly. In fact, they don't even have to be religious at all. You can put up all sorts of things (as long as you're one of the first ten in line.) A display doesn't even have to be winter-specific.

[Carlingtonian]

Come on. A Christmas tree is just that--a Christmas tree. It has long been a part of Christians' celebration of the birth of Christ. Which is why most of them have an angel or a star of Bethlehem at the top. It's not egg nog.

You can't honestly say it has no religious significance.

[normie]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

You can't honestly say it has no religious significance.

Actually, I CAN honestly say that. In fact, that is exactly what I'm saying. To use your example, it is as religious as eggnog. Oh wait! Priests drink eggnog! Eggnog has been seen served with the donuts after church services! In a church building!! Therefore all eggnog (and donuts) must be banned!

Ridiculous (to me, anyhow). Or, should I say Bah Humbug??? Anyway, that's just my opinion. I respect your right to have a different point of view.

Meanwhile, this debate has been going on for nine months now so I'm a bit burnt out on arguing it any further. The final vote was taken. My side won, and I guess I should be smart and realize that's pretty much the end of it. So, although I appreciate the merits of your argument I'm ready to move to the next subject.

[SteelCityRising]

My native Luzerne County, Pennsylvania had a HUGE controversy about this last year as well when an Atheist student at my alma mater contacted the ACLU to complain about a large nativity scene being placed on the front lawn of the nearby courthouse, which fronted a very busy intersection. That individual, a friend of mine, received all sorts of hate mail and even death threats (from these "enlightened" Christians) simply for wanting our county to adhere to the U.S. Constitution in that the government should not give the appearance that it is favoring one religion over another. To avoid a costly lawsuit the county commissioners eventually settled by including various secular decorations all over the lawn in addition to the nativity scene (and menorah, which caused less heartache). With Jesus next to Frosty everyone was happy again. As long as the county doesn't deny other religious groups the ability to erect a similarly-sized display during the Holiday season, then I don't see what the fuss is about. Now, on the other hand, if someone wanted to put up a Festivus Pole in Leesburg at the Loudoun County Courthouse and was told "take a hike", I'd be the first to call CNN to complain about the county harboring a religious bias (and I'm a Christian myself, before someone alludes I'm some anti-Christian transplant from Berkeley).