Some got upset about “holiday trees.” They are atheists who loves themselves a secular but traditional Xmas.
If people didn’t sweat the small stuff, they wouldn’t be calling them holiday trees in the first damn place.
And part of what is at issue is that it isn’t private entities doing this - it is government agencies and schools. This goes way past neutrality toward religion and becomes an action that can easily be seen as hostility toward some religious traditions.
Cite? Gov. agencies saying “Happy Holidays” to the public is damaging and hostile?
So when the government acknowledges that there are several different holidays that fall in December, and chooses to wish happiness on the celebrators of ALL December holidays, that’s hostile to… who exactly?
Specifically, it is meaningful only to “Christians” who want to be chauvinistic without seeming anti-Semitic (now that the latter has become unacceptable in polite society).
Ah–see, that I can understand! My impression is that there are very, very few on the left/atheist side of things who are anti-Christmas, that this is pretty much a controversy between two goofy groups of rightwingers.
Mr. Moto, I’m not clear if you’re suggesting that it’s secular humanists, atheists, and/or liberals who are leading the drive for Holiday Tree appellation. If so, can you support such a claim?
Daniel
Peace on Earth and good will towards men? Nah. It’ll never fly.
Does not compute.
I’m not sure anyone is driving this trend, save a bunch of risk-averse bureaucrats hoping to avoid a controversy and offense that no sane person really feels.
I mean, come on, even the most secular and God-doubting among us call it a Christmas tree, because that’s what the thing plainly is, in the tradition of the vast majority of people in this country. Denying this fact is just silly.
As an example, I present myself. I do not believe that the son of the non-existant god and a virgin was born in a feeding trough. Ridiculous. But I still enjoy the tree, the presents, the eggnog, the carols, the cards, and the hos. It’s such an ingrained tradition that I can’t do without it.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood your earlier post. Sorry!
In this case, I agree with you on the cause. Things like “Happy Holidays” make sense from a governmental and free-market perspective, in most cases: the phrase “Happy Holidays” is more inclusive and recognizes that people legitimately celebrate different holidays around this time of the year.
But something like “Holiday Tree” is dumb, because virtually nobody puts up a tree that’s decorated with baubles and doesn’t call it a Christmas tree. It’d be like having a Holiday Candelabra with nine branches, or a Holiday Man with a red suit and beard. Who’s fooled?
If you want to acknowledge various traditions, that’s totally cool. But when you’re using an artifact peculiar to one tradition, don’t pretend that it’s generic.
Daniel
Same here. Lifelong atheist (note the small “a”), grew up with Christmas as a time of family togetherness and gift-giving. For me, Jesus is not the reason for the season, Santa Claus is.
I suspect that if you grew up with Christmas as a religious holiday and came to atheism later, you might well have a different perspective. But for me, I had no idea there was a religious component to Christmas until sometime in my teens. Seriously.
I think this says it best…
Not quite… it seems a rather obvious ploy to get around the establishment clause, which is why I used examples of private citizens and organizations. A government entity has no business putting up a christmas tree, let alone trying to sneak it in the back door by calling it a ‘holiday tree’ ‘winter bush’ or ‘seasonal conifer’.
This isn’t an attack on Christmas, either. It’s a defense of the seperation of church and state. Like I said, private individuals and organizations are still free to do as they want.
Then it shouldn’t be at issue at all. Those entities should not be doing this, at all.
I honestly don’t see how that can be the read on this situation. They put up a christmas tree, which is an obvious and blatant symbol. What does it matter what they call it?
It just seems odd if that’s really what people are objecting to. And it is indeed a persecution complex when you see a government entity supporting your religion but freak out and believe it’s under attack because they use a different word to refer to the patently obvious religious nature of their actions.
Well, no, not for me. When I was little we were pretty religious. We still had all the Santa and Rudolph stuff. And the Jesus stuff. After a while the Jesus stuff became less important. But there was always ho ho ho.
I suspect there is something about witnessing in the franchisee agreement, so I suspect McDonald’s corporate probably did require it to be taken down. I suspect that ‘Merry Christmans’ results in corporate turning a blind eye. But the ‘Jesus is the reason’ probably goes against the agreement.
Not that I agree with what this woman is doing. I think it’s pretty stupid to start a media campaign against it. The false claims around the war on christmas suddenly take concrete form when the wackos who believe there’s a war see this.
Well, that’s your opinion. I personally think a Christmas tree in a school in no way constitutes an establishment of religion. Again, my opinion, but mine happens to have Supreme Court opinion behind it.
So government has every legal right to put up a tree in a county office building, or the White House, or the U.S. Capitol, or an elementary school.
If you don’t think the tree has anything to do with religion why does it matter what it’s called?
A symbol of what–the birth of Jesus Christ? I’m not getting the symbolism here.
If the tree has an angel on it, that might be a problem (although it’s a problem in the same way that the tags on mattresses are a problem). But it’s perfectly possible to have a Christmas tree which is in no way connected to Jesus, or indeed to any tenet or belief of Christianity.
Christmas is recognized in the US by the government as having both secular and religious aspects to it–schools, for example, are allowed to celebrate the former but not the latter. (I’ll dig up a cite if someone needs me to, but it’ll take me awhile-I read it in a governmnet document linked to from a Raleigh-based Christian group whose name I forget). I’m totally cool by that distinction.
Daniel
It has everything to do with observence of a religious holiday. However, the display of a Christmas tree doesn’t automatically constitute an establishment of or endorsement of a particular religion.