Our PC Holiday Tree
Whether you are a letter carrier, parking enforcer, admin officer, liquid recoating specialist, or perhaps a flight attendant, and even if you are aurally, optically, horizontally, or of all things, folicularily challenged, or comb-free, respectively, it doesn’t matter. If you are a negative saver, nasally repetitive, thermally incompatible, athletically biased, socially misaligned, or god forbid, motivationally deficient, it still does not matter. From the domestic engineer to the utensil sanitizer, from the sanitation engineer to the involuntarily leisured, little people and Canine Americans alike all know that a Christmas tree is not a "Holiday Tree" but a Christmas tree!!
p.s. I could say a lot more on this subject but I don't want to get too worked-up tonight. I just want to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree without being offensive. By the way,Ryan & Jenny, thank you so much for the tree! We love it!
posted by coryandfarah @ 21:18
12 commento
12 Comments:
PC sucks.
I am a thinking person myself; I don't need others to decide for me that I am a tender little man that cannot handle "christmas" along with "tree". Like a couple of talkshow guys I was listening to yesterday said, "when else do you put a pine tree in your living room, and what is called." Let's just call it what it is. If someone is really offended by this, they ought to realize that the word "Christmas" may have "Christ" in it, but it is really celebrated as a secular holidy in our culture but can also be celebrated as a religious one too by those who choose to let the "Christ" in "Christmas" mean something more for them.
By the way, the tree looks great. :)
How dare they call them Easter Eggs?! I move to call them Spring Break Eggs. We must stay progressive and elimate all references, however small or indirect, to America's Judeo-Christian founding ideals. God forbid (oops, I apologize) that anything in our society makes just one single person slightly uncomfortable. We need to continue to revise history, like when we removed the (tiny) cross from the L.A. County seal. In fact, we need to change the name Los Angeles- how can we possibly continue to call it the City of Angels, even if it was founded by Spanish missionaries?! Someone who doesn't believe in angels may not be comfortable with that. San Franciso, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Corpus Christi...they all need to go.
While we're at it, let's not forget that our battle to emasculate men and strip our women of their femininity is not over. And we need to make sure that bi-cultural Americans get their bilingual education, have their own frats and sororities, separate commencement ceremonies and club, etc. Assimilation? How archaic. And we must never say a negative thing about a person of color, because that would be racism.
I could go on about this juvenile, ridiculous, feelings-based PC movement, and how badly it is damaging our country, but I'll spare your blog visitors. I'll just say that it's turning us into a litigious society of spineless wimps who are afraid to state their feelings or acknowledge the obvious. We're losing much of what made America great, and we're going to be worse for it in the long run.
By the way- nice CHRISTMAS tree.
I think you have kind of mischaracterized the argument. No one cares what you call your tree or what you do within the confines of your own home. The debate is whether the government should be as vocal about its religious leanings as you or I.
It’s not about wimpy people getting their precious feelings hurt. It’s about how far the government is allowed promote one religion… or these days, any religion. You see, there’s this little pesky clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution called the endorsement clause, which precludes the government “endorsing” religion.
This clause is not there to protect anyone’s feelings, it’s there to keep the government from endorsing a church and setting up something akin to the Anglican Church across the pond.
The real question is, at what point does the government’s behavior begin to endorse a religion? The answer is not what it used to be. We live in a country vastly different than the America on the 16th century; shouldn’t our interpretation of law reflect that?
I agree, the issue of what you call a tree is inconsequential, but the bigger issue that drives the argument is a very important.
Hello Kevin,
I think there's a big difference between endorsing religious history and recognizing it. I don't think a cross on the L.A. County seal, for example, is a government endorsement of Catholicism. It's a simple recognition of history. Like calling a Christmas tree what it is- a Christmas tree. Call it what it is, or don't call it anything.
I couldn't agree more that separation of church and state is essential to our liberty and success as a society. A country whose government truly endorses and promotes a particular religion, like Iran for example, will never know true freedom. Their human rights record ranks right up there with countries on the other end of this argument- countries who know no religion- like China.
It behooves a country like ours, founded on Judeo-Christian values and separation of church and state, to recognize the source of its founding ideals. We are the most tolerant, charitble society on Earth, and much of that is due to our moral foundation.
What our government chooses to publicly call a Christmas tree, or holiday tree, or whatever, IS consequential, Kevin. To call it a holiday tree is part of a conscious effort rid our country of any semblance of religious reference to our higher ideals. Either it's a conscious effort, or a response to threats of legal action by those (like the ACLU) who want to eliminate any official recognition of Christianity in our culture.
Endorsing and promoting a particular religion is not the same as recognizing the roots of our value system. When you start seeing "In Jesus We Trust" on our coins or "I pledge alligiance to Allah" in our public schools, then you can start to worry. Until then, let's make use of our common sense.
IANAL, but I can read the Constitution for myself (without any rewrites from the Supremes). I am unhappy with the term 'endorsement clause' and strongly prefer the usage 'Establishment clause' for the very simple reason that First Amendment doesn't use the word 'endorse' - it uses the word 'establish'. Meaning, the government shouldn't establish a state religion (like your example of the Church of England), but I see nothing in the amendment that prohibits acknowledging an existing religion, especially one espoused by the majority of the people. I also see nothing that says that the government must change common usages in the English language to eradicate any reference to Christianity.
Just curious - why is 'holiday' okay, but 'Christmas' is not? The latter means 'holy day'. If we have to have this fight, maybe we should call them 'Federal employee paid non-workday trees'. Merry Federal employee paid non-workday to all, and to all a good night!
Just for reference:
The First Amendment
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.
Got some discussion going here...
Is calling a pine tree in a living room as a "Christmas tree" an endorsement of one religion if the government chooses to use this word? If so, how? Is it the term "Christmas" that makes it an endorsement? There are surely lines to be drawn in the Government not promoting or endorsing one religion, but is this one of them?
Can the government use the word "menorah" or must they say "nine-pronged candle device" if they had a reason to use this word?
Where do we draw the lines? How far do we take this? What indeed is endorsing and what is simply describing?
Ryan - I think the main concern is around things like Christmas trees on government property (like at the state Capitol). If they call it a 'Christmas tree', they are clearly endorsing and establishing a state religion. (/sarcasm)
Seriously, as far as I can tell, the reason for calling it a 'holiday tree' is either to avoid this accusation, or to continue with the de-Christianization of our culture.
Please don't get me wrong - I think that the Church took a horrible turn when Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. We (the Church) have not quite finished recovering from that. At the same time, it's silly to pretend that Christianity has had no impact on our culture. And it's not silly, but something far, far darker, to try to control political and culture debate by pre-empting all the terminology.
Good thoughts Tyson.
And everyone else, I was at Starbucks today and I asked if they were going to change the name of their famous once a year Christmas Blend to Holiday Blend. And the Barista told me that they actually have Holiday Blend, which is the same as Christmas blend, but they have it for the ocassional person who may value not having the word "Christmas". It is the same wrapping and all, but it says "Holiday Blend" instead. I thought that was sensitive and proactive of Starbucks, yet firm. A good approach to cover their bases just in case, but also keeping language for something that customers have grown to love. Thought you'd enjoy knowing this...
Tyson said,
“IANAL, but I can read the Constitution for myself (without any rewrites from the Supremes). I am unhappy with the term 'endorsement clause' and strongly prefer the usage 'Establishment clause' for the very simple reason that First Amendment doesn't use the word 'endorse' - it uses the word 'establish'. Meaning, the government shouldn't establish a state religion (like your example of the Church of England), but I see nothing in the amendment that prohibits acknowledging an existing religion, especially one espoused by the majority of the people. I also see nothing that says that the government must change common usages in the English language to eradicate any reference to Christianity.”
Tyson, whether you accept it or not, the system of law in our country dictates that the Supreme Court be the ultimate interpreter of the law. When they interpret establishment to be synonymous with establishment, you must read their interpretation into it. We have a common law system, which means judicial rulings have the same force as statutory law. To suggest the Supreme Court rewrites the Constitution overlooks the role of the Judiciary.
And just so we are clear, the Supreme Court has never ruled that there ought to be no governmental reference to God, or Christianity. Under the Lemon test, the Supreme Court has ruled that a government building can display a nativity scene during the Christmas season, as long as the building also displays other religious holiday symbols. In Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court held that Congress could open up with a Christian prayer. The Marsh Court reasoned that because the prayer was a national tradition, it was to be allowed.
Ryan Said:
“Is calling a pine tree in a living room as a "Christmas tree" an endorsement of one religion if the government chooses to use this word? If so, how? Is it the term "Christmas" that makes it an endorsement? There are surely lines to be drawn in the Government not promoting or endorsing one religion, but is this one of them?”
No, and no one is suggesting that. If, however, the Government sets up a tree in the political center of DC, adorns it with blatant Christian imagery, and refers to it as Christian symbol, then the question becomes murkier. Why should the government be in the business of celebrating religious holidays? And why are all the holidays Christian? Does such a behavior amount to endorsing Christianity over another religion?
My arguments here are mostly as devil’s advocate. But there is an increasing part of me that is sick of Christians calling foul all the time on this stuff. I’m Christian. I love Christmas. I believe that country was, to a large degree, influenced by Christian values. But at the end of the day, I look at Christ in Roman occupied Judea. Is he pissed the Romans stifle Jewish worship? Or does he suggest in any way that it is important to have a government that is religious? I don’t think so.
If Jesus and the early church can be perfectly content to live in a culture that does not acknowledge their religion, then I am not going to get terribly upset when my government moves away from acknowledgement.
Of course this is an argument that has been going on for a large portion of Christendom. Many flavors American Protestantism believe that the only way the second coming will occur is when we set up the Christian government. The Anabatists believed the church had no business with government.
/end rant
Kevin-
I for one would certainly vote against having a Christian government. The Kingdom of God coming does not look like that to me. Besides, I think that was tried already and it didn't really work out. I do not believe that would promote freedom on many levels.
Maybe I am not aware of the Christian symbols on the tree at the Capitol or wherever these trees are. To me it just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal, but maybe my lenses are colored since I too am a Christian.
I did read recently in a book by Bill Press how he feels that Christians have a victim mentality and cry about how they are being persecuted at so many levels in culture. I do think that this happens and conservative talk radio has definitely been mentioning the tree issue. Christians ought to keep themselves in check and make sure that if there is a gripe, that it is warranted and justified and not petty. As far as with this issue though, I do think that this can be looked at as a religious issue, but also a silly situation where political correctness is seeping in to the words we use. To me this is not about Jesus being crossed out of Christmas and I don't feel persecuted as a Christian. This is about words and I start to wonder what will happen when the government changes words. Will this trickle down to the rest of culture? That is one of my concerns when I feel that the phrase "Christmas tree" legitamately describes something that I have grown up with.
Our holidays typically come from our country's origin and the holidays that people brought with them and most of the other ones seem to deal with America. As far as relgiion though, you bring up a good point, what role should the gov't have in celebrating religious holidays? Ought the President remember all religious holidays and wish people a happy ramadan, channukah, easter, christmas, etc...?
My last thought: If the government does begin to celebrate and mention other religious holidays, I will be the first in line to get a government job so I can have more days off. :)
Kevin -
No rant - you make interesting points. I am in agreement with you about Christians complaining about a lot of this stuff (I think my second post in this thread points that way). While I wouldn't call this a Christian country (and I don't really think that there's ever been such a beast) I do think it's silly to ignore that the majority of the people in this country, from it's founding right up to the present, self-identify as Christians. The hard balance is between democracy and freedom - is this sort of 'public Christianity' a tyranny of the majority, or is it simply an expression of one of the unifying bonds in American culture?
Again, IANAL, but I am vaguely familiar with stare decisis. The problem is that I believe that many Supreme Court decisions are horribly unConstitutional. Why stick with those decisions? I would prefer viewing prior Supreme Court decisions under the doctrine of jurisprudence constante, rather than stare decisis. Use them as a guideline, sure, but toss them when they're flat-out wrong or stupid. We claim to be a democracy, but it's a group of appointed-for-life judges who are the final arbiter? What happened to the checks and balances? Besides, one of the beauties of this free country: I can read the Constitution for myself. It's pretty straightforward. If I'm curious about what a particular part means, I can easily find plenty of writings by the guys who first wrote it, explaining what they had in mind. The Supremes obviously have a role, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should just defer to them.
I think it's significant that the opening words of the Constitution are 'We the people...', not 'We the Constitutional scholars...'.
The thing that drives me nuts is that I believe that many of these Supreme Court enhancements are not about preserving and defending the Constitution - they are all about figuring out how to get around it.
/end rant - I can't remember what my point was anymore.
Ryan - one of the best parts in Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell is the appendix where he talks about Newspeak, the language that the Party, under Big Brother, is creating. The goal is to make it impossible for people to commit thoughtcrime, because they won't even have the words to think anything other than what they are told to think. Sounds like PC, huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home