OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bah humbug! Get that goddamn evergreen out of my Capitol!
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Gendall:
- Tread lightly, Berquam (September 24, 2007)
- From the desk of the editor (August 31, 2007)
- Welcome to the Herald (August 6, 2007)
- Mayor abandons principles for power (March 28, 2007)
Related Stories:
- What would Brian Boitano do? (December 13, 2005)
- Merry 'Santa-mas' to you (November 29, 2007)
- A seasonal paradox (December 10, 2003)
- Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
- 'War on Christmas' distracts from substantive issues, problems (December 13, 2005)
by Mike Gendall
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Christmas Tree or Holiday Tree? What should the state of Wisconsin call the giant decorated evergreen standing tall in the middle of the Capitol rotunda? Many of you probably think it doesn't matter, and it would be easy to say the question is not important enough to merit a serious discussion. I think it does. To be sure, there are greater injustices and greater controversies in our state that deserve legislative attention, but this too is important. It's important because it goes far beyond a discussion of what to call the tree — it's a discussion about the separation between church and state, and about whether the state erecting a Christmas tree in the middle of the Capitol violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I hate to be the Grinch. I like Christmas and I like Christmas trees, but my solution would be to get rid of the tree. Let it stand through the holidays, but don't bring it back next year. Until, and unless, our state legislators can agree to both call and conceptualize the tree as a "Holiday Tree," the Capitol rotunda is not an appropriate place for it to stand.
If you listen to Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, decorated evergreens are a historically pagan tradition, and not necessarily tied to Christmas or Christianity. The problem, though, is that I think Badger Herald Editorial Board Chairman Ryan Masse and Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, who introduced a bill this week to officially change the tree's name to the "Wisconsin State Christmas Tree," are right. As Mr. Schneider told a Herald reporter this week, "It is what it is." While Ms. Gaylor's history lesson may be accurate, it is clear very few Wisconsinites actually think of the tree in those terms.
It doesn't have to be a Christmas tree, but it is one. And if Mr. Schneider had not pointed that out, it would have been someone else. It's become an expected tradition of the holiday season in this state for any number of self-righteously Christian legislators to point to the tree as an example of a cultural war against Christmas or an inappropriate degree of political correctness. The tree has been dubbed the Holiday Tree since 1985, but a significant number of state politicians have refused to ever accept it as such.
In his column above, Mr. Masse joins the fray, calling Wisconsin's holiday tree "political correctness run completely amok." But he misplaces the blame; political correctness is not the problem, in this case. Nothing would be wrong with a secular celebration — a holiday tree — proudly displayed in the Capitol rotunda. The problem is that it is not actually a secular celebration, and is therefore not appropriate. The solution is not to change the name to accurately reflect what it is, but to throw it away because, as Mr. Schneider said, "It is what it is."
No matter what we call the tree, it is a religious symbol, whether Ms. Gaylor or I like it or not. To make matters worse, this symbol is ceremoniously placed in the center of the state Capitol building, towering up above the second floor. So, if it is a religious symbol, which I think it is, it should not be there. Given that the state pays for it, I don't think it should be anywhere, especially not on Capitol grounds, and especially not erected in imposing fashion at the heart of the building.
The separation of church and state is a worthwhile ideal, and a Christmas tree is just not worth an exception.
Mike Gendall (mgendall@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in philosophy and political science.
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 3:03am):
damn straight.
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 8:42am):
Hey?!!?? Has anyone seen the baby?!!?? Quick! Plug the drain!
Nothing wrong with tension in a public, political building - that's what the place is for. Let the controversy reign, and in the meantime, ain't the tree pretty?
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 10:00am):
It think our red and green winter holiday is best represented by 5 am door buster sales, not shrubbery brought in from the cold.
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 10:27am):
I love that there's a Google ad for Christmas trees along with this article.
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 10:53am):
Opposition to the Christmas tree was strong in past centuries. The early Christian Church in the third century strictly prohibited the decoration of their houses with evergreen boughs.
Many Pagan cultures used to cut boughs of evergreen trees in December, move them into the home or temple, and decorate them.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 12:02pm):
Is it just me, or do the pagan versions of our holidays totally rule?
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 1:46pm):
as an athiest, id say, what is the big deal with leaving the tree as it is. Its not a nativity scene, its a christmas tree, something that has extended past solely religious purposes into a secular idea of good will and holiday spirit. As i said before, if your religious views are offended by this tree, then your religious views are shored on a very weak foundation.
John McAdams (November 29, 2007 @ 3:36pm):
Genuine tolerance would allow a Christmas tree, and allow it to be called a Christmas tree.
Isn't that a recognition of Christianity?
Of course it is, and it's legitimate, since a majority of Americans are Christians.
What about other religions? Recognize them too. Nothing wrong with displaying a manora.
Nothing wrong with official government recognition of Ramadan.
Cleansing all religious symbols from the public sectors enshrines the views of atheists and secular people.
Government doesn't have to placate those who don't like religion, and would like to never be reminded that Americans are religious.
Let government recognize and honor religion -- all religions equally.
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 6:59pm):
John McAdams, I'd like to add to your point. The communists cleansed their countries of religion and religious symbols and made "the communist way" the new all inclusive, mandatory religion. Did they have divisions between religious groups? Probably not divisions that were able to be noticed, especially by the state.
Communism is fading quickly, socialism seems somewhat stable in Western Europe, and Capitalism will likely burn out when China perfects their version of a half state/ half private economy. A millennium from now, I doubt Christianity, Judaism, or Islam will look anything similar to today.
In all likelihood, we're getting bent out of shape over nothing. Our children will laugh at how ridiculous their parents' generation was, and we'll probably be mocked for the thick-headed boobs that we let ourselves become. This PC shit is going to be their version of our parents' polyester plaid pants. This is not a fight for civil rights, this is a playground ego trip; this is Costanza wanting to be called T-bone.
Perspective goes a long way.
Anonymous (November 29, 2007 @ 9:28pm):
The "Establishment Clause" applies to the federal government only, not states, so states are free to act according to their own legislation, customs and traditions.
But moreover, if it did apply to states as it does to the federal govt., then all the Establishment Clause says is that government shall keep itself out of this issue entirely and take no position whatsoever. So, if the citizens of Wisconsin wish to have a Christmas tree in their capitol rotunda (which belongs to them, anyway), then the Wisconsin govt. will not interfere with the people's display of a Christmas tree. If they want to put a menorah in the rotunda, then the same applies. The govt. shall make no law interfering with the people's desire in this issue.
Everyone should read Peter Lillback's Wall of Misconception. It's so packed with fact, not opinion, spin or interpretation, that the whole separation of church and state issue became crystal clear to me after I read the book.
Anonymous (December 3, 2007 @ 2:09pm):
Great Ganesha's trunk!
First, get that Allah-damn depiction of Mohammed off the Supreme Court fresco... then you can talk evergreens.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48695
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
