Chicagoist: Tis the Season for Made Up Controversies

sigy

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:49:04 -0600

Thank you John for making my point clear to Zak. Zak, 10 years ago there was a Christmas Tree outside the Whitehouse. It was called a Christmas Tree and NO one had a problem with that. Every school, business etc., displayed Christmas Trees and no one had a problem with that. Therefore I do not agree that it has CONTINUALLY been interpreted..... . Not in my lifetime!!!!!!!!! The fact is the government has never passed a law implementing a "separation of church and state." The CONCEPT is derived from the First Amendment of the The Constitution of the United States of America, which reads as follows: "Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Zak, please show me in this excerpt from the Constitution where it says that ONLY INDIVIDUALS, (who just happen to make up the people inside our gov. buildings, all businesses, schools etc.-the buildings would sort of be useless without them), have the freedom to display religious symbols during a religious celebration. Where does it even IMPLY that a decorated tree outside the Whitehouse says that our government is disrespecting other religions. Freedom is being manipulated and curtailed in this country and I think people like yourself have bought into this. Be careful of the liberties you simply hand over to people who want to change this country in the name of progress. Is this progress? It doesn't fit my definition. (That is a whole other arguement). Your interpretaion is "PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" in my opinion. I think that anyone working in the White House, for example, who is Jewish who wishes to have a Menorah displayed during Hannikah would be FREE to do so.(Government of the people, for the people and by the people.) I am saying everyone has a right to join in the celebration and display away. Once again I conclude that it is those individuals or groups who do not want to accept religions outside their own who have twisted what was acceptable practice in this country for centuries into something new to support their own agenda's. I would agree 100 percent that we not limit religious displays to only Christian symbols, but to be told that only certain parts of this society are NOW allowed to display them is wrong. This is a similar arguement to the issues we have had with displaying the American Flag in public places in the years since 9/11. Okay, you got me started, I could go on and on but I will rest my case here.

John Powers

Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:00:55 -0600

So Zak, How does calling a ceremonial tree by its accurate name endorse a religion? Should St. Louis, Missouri be renamed as the Gateway city to avoid reference to King St. Louis, the Crusader? How about Providence, Rhode Island? Wouldn't a moderate degree of consistency and accuracy in nomenclature be both a secular and a religious goal? JBP

Zak

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:33:15 -0600

Freedom of religion, Sigy, has CONTINUALLY been interpretted to mean freedom for independent citizens to worship as they see fit (with a few exceptions...i.e. no human sacrifice). WHAT THAT ALSO MEANS, is that any specific religious gesture by the federal government (or local, or state, or whatever) can be seen as a TACIT ENDORSEMENT of said religion. AND the government SHOULD NOT BE in the business of endorsing ANY religious belief.

sigy

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:21:26 -0600

I seem to recall the history books I read in school saying something about the first inhabitants of this continent coming here to escape religious oppression. I think they said something about the "right" to express FREELY your religious preference-if you have one. Freely, to me means when it is Christmas any person or organization in this country has the right to display any and all religious symbols in keeping with that religious event. I think our founding fathers are pitchin a fit in their graves because we have come to the point where we are being told that if we don't display every cultures chosen symbols of a particular holiday, we should not display any. WHO, made the assumption that if one symbol is left out it is a statement of dislike or disagreement with that particular religion. I think it was individual's or groups who really do want to assert their belief that their chosen religion is better than someone else's and they missed the entire concept of FREEDOM to worship in this country. It is afterall a celebration folks not a contest. I think we have lost perspective in this area.

Atrill

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:19:49 -0600

The Bible condemns "Christmas trees" - Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." Leave the Yule trees to us heathens! Goddamn revisionist christians...mumble mumble...

sigy

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:58:39 -0600

Eva your comment is self evident. To say that all religion is a form of mind control-is not an attempt to "persuade"? Which taken to it's extreme would be brainwashing? On the topic at hand, does this mean it is okay to call a Menorah a "Holiday Candelabra"?

Zak

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:24:10 -0600

I saw O'Reilly ranting about this mularkey again. It's a ridiculous tactic, which is part of the right-wing, white, Christian fundamentalist ploy to attempt to paint white Christians as some sort of oppressed minority. They don't give an actual shit about the tree...they just want to use it as fuel to fire the fears of supposed "Christian-oppression." Schools shouldn't teach "intelligent design" b/c it's BAD SCIENCE, not b/c there is a governmental conspiracy AGAINST Christianity. Last I checked, at least in theory, the Congress was a non-sectarian organization, and therefor a tree out front, for example, should not be a religious symbol. That's not to say that Congress is against Christianity. The point is, however, to not give an endorsement (no matter how tacit) of one religion over another. Of course...Bill O'Reilly is right...White, Christian, middle to uppper class men are an oppressed people...what with DANGEROUS MINORITIES AND WOMEN gettin' jobs through affirmative action. The right wing can blow me. I'm so tired of this crap.

Benjy

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:04:58 -0600

This whole controversy is f'ed up. The Christian Wrong needs to realize that not everybody celebrates the same holidays and their crusade against "Happy Holidays" is just a bigoted attack against those of us who don't celebrate Christmas. I agree that it's stupid to call it a "holiday tree" because it's not a symbol of Hannukah, Kwanzaa or other holidays. On the other hand, I think it's stupid to have them on government property. Why can't they just build a giant snowman or something?

dan

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:39:39 -0600

Lib's got a good point. It's not really "anti-Christmas tree" folks as "separation of church and state" folks. Likewise, it's not really "pro-Christmas tree" folks as "religious nutjobs who are trying to distract the public from far more important things."

Anonymous

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:36:34 -0600

But Jim W....a lot of people call that hot dog "weiner" so it really does go by a completely 'other' name... heh.

Lib

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:33:52 -0600

JimW There is no such thing as anti-Christmas tree folks. Don't you get it? We libs are worried about war, homelessness, hunger and poverty. It's the nutjobs who want to distract the rest of us from how much worse everything has become under their watch by bringing up religion. Lib

dan

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:32:21 -0600

JimW >> You're getting it turned around. It's currently called the "Holiday tree" and Hastert wants to turn it into the "Christmas tree". It's not the anti-Christmas tree folks who are starting this fight, instead of fighting social injustice, homelessness, etc. It's the pro-Christmas tree folks who are starting this whole debate. And the reason this is happening is that neo-con groups want to validate religious iconography in a public forum. By simply changing it to "Christmas tree", you allow legislative precedence for other religious icons in public, state-funded forums.

Tim

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:32:07 -0600

JimW, I don't really think it's the anti-Christmas tree guys who are obsessing about something so trivial. Seems to me that it's Dennis Hastert who's wasting his time on this non-issue; I think he's probably in a better position to address those important issues of homelessness, hunger and poverty than the average citizen, because, y'know, he makes the laws of the country where all that stuff seems to be on the increase.

JimW

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:48:49 -0600

"Christmas Tree" is its name. It would be just as silly to call a "Hot Dog" a "Warm Cow" because some portion of the populace finds it offensive to eat dogs. The anti-Christmas Tree folks need to find something real to obsess about - homelessness, hunger and poverty leap to mind.

eva

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:41:07 -0600

All religion is a sham whose main purpose is to exert mind control.

dan

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:31:37 -0600

Yup, gotta agree with Mike. Hastert is just pandering to his base >> the fundamentalists. Who seriously cares about this? It's a cheap ploy to win points from the right-wingers, and a diversionary tactic from all of the truly awful things going on that really matter to people. Plus, in political terms, it's a way for the Republicans to legitimize religious iconography in a public/state forum. If the capitol has a "Christmas" tree, then why can't it have the 10 commandments, the signs of the cross, and a bloody Jesus as well?

mike

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:49:22 -0600

It's nice to see our elected officials addressing the problems that everyday Americans car deeeply about. Were I not able to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree, life would not be worth living.

Michelle

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:33:14 -0600

The utlization of evergreen in different forms (wreaths, trees, mistletoe, etc.) was actually first utilized during Pagan rituals of Yule (or Winter Solstice) as celebration of life and a way to ward off evil sorcery and such. This took place long before Christianity got it's grubby little fingers on such traditions.