Spring Break
"Holiday trees" a capitulation to political correctness
Issue date: 12/6/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
by Meg Ewald
Editor-in Chief
Why do we have such a hard time calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree?
After watching the mayor light Las Cruces' official "Holiday tree," I began to wonder why state and federal officials don't just dub their shaggy evergreens "Euphemism trees" or perhaps "Politically Correct Vegetative Beings" instead. The meaning would be about the same.
After all, to what holiday does the name refer? Labor Day, perhaps? Surely not Veteran's Day. Hmmm ... what other holiday falls around this time of year ... Martin Luther King Day? Nope, those pesky trees usually don't stick around that long.
What's that you say? Christmas? Ah ha! A quick Web search will tell you that the triangular shape of the fir tree was used to explain the Trinity, and that conifers, because they stay green year round, symbolize everlasting life to Christians on Christmas. Just like a menorah is a menorah and a dreidel a dreidel, that big evergreen festooned with lights is a Christmas tree.
So why the confusion and controversy surrounding the tree's moniker? Government officials don't want to appear to endorse one religion at the expense of others and don't want to upset the P.C. crowd dedicated to expunging anything containing the word "Christ" from public life for fear of it causing offense.
Those who display a "Holiday tree" appropriate a religious symbol but call it something else to avoid giving offense. Does this make sense? Do they really think that anyone offended by the presence of a "Christmas tree" will feel any more warm and fuzzy if it's called a "Holiday tree"? If the symbol is inherently empty, changing its name won't make a difference.
Officials worried about appearing to favor a single religion should display Hanukkah and Kwannza symbols alongside their Christmas trees. Hell, why not include an "atheist/agnostic cactus"? This should make everybody happy, if their objections to the "Christmas tree" truly stem from a concern over representing all religions equally. Surely a diversity of religious symbols is better than a generic and meaningless "Holiday" symbol.
Lighting a "Holiday tree" symbolizes nothing more than capitulation to the language police intent on stifling free speech. Many people find federally and state funded art that disparages the Christian religion offensive. The artists and their financial backers defend the art by citing every citizen's right to free speech. If "free speech" arguments can justify and defend art trashing Christianity, the same arguments apply to the display of government-sponsored Christmas trees. Unless, of course, our right to free speech applies only to defamation, never to celebration.
The Constitution guarantees each of us the right to free speech, but the founding fathers made no mention of a "Right to not be offended." Christmas and Christians exist. You might not like it or agree with them, but your dislike does not constitute an acceptable reason for their removal from public life and discourse. Get over it.
Editor-in Chief
Why do we have such a hard time calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree?
After watching the mayor light Las Cruces' official "Holiday tree," I began to wonder why state and federal officials don't just dub their shaggy evergreens "Euphemism trees" or perhaps "Politically Correct Vegetative Beings" instead. The meaning would be about the same.
After all, to what holiday does the name refer? Labor Day, perhaps? Surely not Veteran's Day. Hmmm ... what other holiday falls around this time of year ... Martin Luther King Day? Nope, those pesky trees usually don't stick around that long.
What's that you say? Christmas? Ah ha! A quick Web search will tell you that the triangular shape of the fir tree was used to explain the Trinity, and that conifers, because they stay green year round, symbolize everlasting life to Christians on Christmas. Just like a menorah is a menorah and a dreidel a dreidel, that big evergreen festooned with lights is a Christmas tree.
So why the confusion and controversy surrounding the tree's moniker? Government officials don't want to appear to endorse one religion at the expense of others and don't want to upset the P.C. crowd dedicated to expunging anything containing the word "Christ" from public life for fear of it causing offense.
Those who display a "Holiday tree" appropriate a religious symbol but call it something else to avoid giving offense. Does this make sense? Do they really think that anyone offended by the presence of a "Christmas tree" will feel any more warm and fuzzy if it's called a "Holiday tree"? If the symbol is inherently empty, changing its name won't make a difference.
Officials worried about appearing to favor a single religion should display Hanukkah and Kwannza symbols alongside their Christmas trees. Hell, why not include an "atheist/agnostic cactus"? This should make everybody happy, if their objections to the "Christmas tree" truly stem from a concern over representing all religions equally. Surely a diversity of religious symbols is better than a generic and meaningless "Holiday" symbol.
Lighting a "Holiday tree" symbolizes nothing more than capitulation to the language police intent on stifling free speech. Many people find federally and state funded art that disparages the Christian religion offensive. The artists and their financial backers defend the art by citing every citizen's right to free speech. If "free speech" arguments can justify and defend art trashing Christianity, the same arguments apply to the display of government-sponsored Christmas trees. Unless, of course, our right to free speech applies only to defamation, never to celebration.
The Constitution guarantees each of us the right to free speech, but the founding fathers made no mention of a "Right to not be offended." Christmas and Christians exist. You might not like it or agree with them, but your dislike does not constitute an acceptable reason for their removal from public life and discourse. Get over it.