Christmas Tree Controversy

[travelinman]

Christmas Tree Controversy

December 15, 2004

By Molly Shen

BELLEVUE - You can't miss the Christmas tree in Bellevue City Hall.

"It's decorated with gold balls and gold ribbon," described a city worker.

They don't actually call it a Christmas tree.

"We call it the giving tree because it's meant as a season of giving and that's what it's for," explained Patrice Cole, who just made a donation.

The tree is adorned with requests for gifts from needy families.

It generates nearly $25,000 dollars worth of donations.

So, you might be surprised that Sidney Stock would look at this tree and say, "I resent it."

Sidney and Jennifer Stock are atheists.

They asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas which is a Christian holiday.

Stock says city hall should "Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed."

The courts already sided with the city on this one.

Barbara Ramey, spokesperson for the city explained. "Courts have ruled that Christmas trees are actually a secular symbol so given that, we are within the court precedents set on this issue," says Ramey.

The Stocks complained after a city worker told them the tree makes him feel out of place, and if he says so, he fears for his job.

The couple's already gotten hate filled phone calls, but they speak out anyway, because they believe many people feel the way they do but stay silent.

"There are a lot of people who've come to this country, maybe have been here for years, who don't feel freedom to say anything," says Jennifer Stock. "So we feel we're saying it for those people. Not just for ourselves."

The city doesn't plan to take the tree down and expects it will go up again next year.

They can also expect to hear from the Stocks.

Sidney Stock points out that to bring about change, you have to stir the pot.

"I try and be aware of injustice and inequality when it effects anybody or everybody," he says. "Certainly this is something that has been a problem for as long as I can remember."


source

[gae]

Since trees are pagan symbols, how can an atheist resent it?

[cincygreg]

C'mon. A tree doesnt represent anything religious.
It's a decoration.
Heck, I know some jewish families do a "Chanukah Bush"

That's just dumb people looking for something to get mad about.
Apparently they cannot be fully content unless they are complaining about something that really has no effect on their lives at all.
Wait, I might actually know them. LOL! [img]eek.gif[/img]

[Dulcinea]

I don't get this either. I'm against displays that appear to give governmental sanction to one religion over another, but I can't believe that someone has a problem with this.

I don't think a gold tree soliciting donations for the less fortunate represents Christianity any more than an rabbit carrying colored eggs does. I've always thought that the secular aspects of what were formerly primarily religious holidays are part of our culture, not a specific religion.

[Lew]

I never cease to be amazed by this crap, either. People like the two atheists don't seem to understand that being "offended" isn't enough to make something unconstitutional. If it were, then we would never be able to have anything because you can always find someone who is offended by something. I'm sure pacifists don't really care to see taxpayer dollars erect a veterans memorial that displays a WWII tank. Get over it.

NOTE: I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth, in case anyone recalls that I supported the ouster of Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. In that case, the court made a ruling, and he chose to ignore it. For that alone, he should have been given the gate.

[LanDroid]

TREASON!

[Piña]

Is anyone here seriously suggesting that a christmas tree is not inextricably associatted with a christian holiday such as christmas?

The fact that it was hijacked by the christians does not take away from the fact that it is an almost universally established symbol for christmas. Out of curiousity do the people in city hall put an angel on top?

<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 17, 2004 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Pi?a ]</font>

[LanDroid]

The hunt for UnChristian attitudes is getting weird this season. It's like "Hey Christmas is not COMPLETELY ubiquitous, there are teensy spots here or there where Santa isn't given his full due! We gotta fight back and regain the power we've lost!" Well if you think it's bad here, check out Cuba! [img]eek.gif[/img]

<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 17, 2004 11:36 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

[gae]

I hardly think that lawsuits over Christmas trees, the absence of traditional Christmas carols at "winter" concerts and the National Christmas tree being dubbed this year as "The People's Tree" are teensy spots here or there.

And really, for me, this whole debate is less about Christmas per se, and more about the idiot notion that no one should ever be offended.

We're all offended by something, but as Lew pointed out, being offended doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Edited to add This

<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ December 18, 2004 06:28 AM: Message edited by: gae ]</font>

[Lew]

Pina-

As is often the case, you are correct in theory but wrong as respects the particular issue at hand. A good majority of lawsuits that are filed in cases such as these are little more than whore cases, and at least based on the comments posted here (granted, I have see nothing further) this seems to be such a case.

But I'll leave that for a moment, let's say these are legitimate citizens who are merely concerned with their constitutional rights....


Is a Christmas tree such as the one described herein an example of government "support" for religion? I don't think it reaches that level, but yeah, I can at least see how someone would feel that way.

But be careful here, because one must be consistent. Look at a dollar bill sometime. My grandfather is a mason, I have no idea what all they are into but that bill appears to be covered with all sorts of images/symbols that pertain to the masonic order (what's up with the all-seeing eye?). If allowing a tree to be erected on government property is "establishment," then surely the symbols on the dolla-dollar bill must be.

Or "In God We Trust."

So fine, take those words off the coins.

But....

Some religions are pacifist. War and its progeny are clearly against their doctrine. In many sybols of the U.S., the Eagle is shown with arrows in one of its talons, symbolizing military might. Wouldn't that offend a practicioner of a pacifist religion?

Extreme example, perhaps, but why not? Bottom line, in theory, you are correct. But the reality is, most of these suits are brought by people who ARE offended by what they saw, and think they have a right to be free from anything and everything out there that offends them. Well, you know, fraudulent lawsuits offend me, so let's pass an amendment outlawing them, as well (well....ok...maybe that would put me out of a job....nevermind...)