Capitol Christmas tree controversy
A controversy has been brewing around the decorations selected for this year’s U.S. Capitol Christmas tree.
Starting in 1964, a Christmas tree has been erected, decorated, and displayed on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol from early December till New Year’s Day. As of 1970, the Capitol Christmas tree has been selected from one of the country’s National Forests. This year, for the first time, the tree will come from the state of Arizona, specifically the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
Arizona schoolchildren have been given the privilege of making the ornaments that will decorate the 125-year-old tree. Would-be ornament makers were officially advised to be sure the ornaments can withstand harsh winter weather, that they adhere to certain size restrictions, and that they honor and reflect something about Arizona. They were also told that “natural materials should be used that are eco-sensitive and recyclable.” Oh, and one more thing: “Ornament designs may not reflect religious themes.” Say what?
In case you’re wondering, the tree is officially called the Capitol Christmas tree. In 1999 it was renamed the Capitol Holiday tree. But apparently wiser heads prevailed in 2005 when it again became known as the Capitol Christmas tree.
It seemed odd that a Christmas tree couldn’t have “Christmas” decorations on it. One Arizona child who thought so, too, broke the rules by creating three ornaments: One reads “Merry Christmas,” another says “Happy Birthday, Jesus,” and the third portrays a manger scene.
The Alliance Defense Fund took up the case on behalf of the child’s mother, demanding that state and federal officials “abandon the prohibition of religious viewpoints” on the ornaments by Sunday, October 4.
Sometimes it’s amazing what the threat of a lawsuit can do. As of this Wednesday, the restriction against religious ornaments was posted on the internet among the other guidelines for schoolchildren. But by yesterday, it has disappeared. According to a spokeswoman for the Architect of the Capitol, the group that oversees the Capitol tree (among other things), that was “old information,” and “is no longer the position of the agency.”
Too bad Monday is the deadline for submissions.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top34 Comments to “Capitol Christmas tree controversy”
The Christmas tree should be regarded as just fine because it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, but rather is a secular/pagan symbol.
Report comment to moderator
HMMM! I am a Christian, and I find myself agreeing with JON ROWE. Hopefully we are seeing it from the same viewpoint.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
I tend to view Christmas trees as more of a holiday tradition than as a way to celebrate the Lord’s birth. So, I tend to agree also.
Report comment to moderator
You guys have a point, but it is a Christmas tree, so why can’t it be decorated with traditional (including religious) symbols of Christmas.
Report comment to moderator
For one I think it SHOULD be able to be decorated with traditional symbols of Christmas…along with pagan, and non-Christian religious symbols on a non-discriminatory basis. The manger next to St. Nick, Hanukkah, Ramadan, and Saturnalia all ornaments on this pluralistic American Christmas tree. Who has a problem with that?
Report comment to moderator
4. Exactly, it is a CHRISTmas tree.
Report comment to moderator
Although the Christmas tree might have an origin in pagan festivities and practices, it was quickly invested with Christian significance. Christmas trees are evergreen to represent eternal life.
Decorations deemed secular and therefore innocuous often have specific theological meaning. The elements of a candy cane’s design, for example, are intentional: shaped like a shepherd’s crook, and striped red for the sacrificial blood of Jesus and white for righteousness, inverted it displays as “J” for Jesus.
There is nothing in the original meaning of the Constitution that prevents the recognition of a holiday that has significance for the majority of citizens. Nor is there anything to prevent recognition of non Christian religious themes or holidays that likewise enjoy broad support. The attempt, however, to mix elements of one into another, to enforce some sort of faux neutrality as a sop to secularists, is plain silliness.
Report comment to moderator
Since there is freedom of speech (at least so far) it would seem that a child could make any decoration they wanted.
This is just another bad move on the part of the White House and Washington.
If it weren’t for Christ being born there would be no CHRISTmas.
Soooo how will the White House be decorated for CHRISTmas this year – with Michelle in charge? – that should be interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Recalls the complaint and response done about the SeaTac airport “Christmas decorations” from a few years back.
All the decor was immediately taken down. To worsen matters the complainant, a Jewish chap, faced all sorts of harassing calls.
I’ve known many Jewish folks. Not a one has ever begrudged or resented “Merry Christmas”.
In fact one Jewish older couple boasted that they had more Christmas lights up on their house than did their Christian neighbors.
There was actually a quote on a peel off a day C.S. Lewis calendar where a British lady looked at church’s decorations and remarked “Oh look, now their trying to bring religion into it!!”
A Christ-less Christmas? Only in the USA. What next, a Ramadan commemoration where we can’t acknowledge Muhammad?
Report comment to moderator
There are more than 200,000 Indians — Native Americans — living in Arizona and 21 Federally recognized tribes. The predominant tribes, Navajo, Apache, Hopi, Mohave (Mojave), Zuni, and others have symbols such as Kachina dolls and animals they consider sacred (the coyote, for example, is evil), and other fetishes. (Indians do not have a word for “religion” in the sense we recognize it, they speak instead of “tradition.”}
Do you think the committee in charge of selecting contributions from Indian tribal schools would consider items such as might be offered which the Indians revere as sacred?
Report comment to moderator
Allen, interesting point -
Report comment to moderator
They should let the children decide what to make. Children are very creative anyway, and it would make it all the more special for them to be expressing what is in their own hearts–otherwise, what’s the point?
Report comment to moderator
Every myth or no myths.
However, instead of an angel at the top, please put a drama queen.
Report comment to moderator
As long ago as when I was in school, kids competed to make drawings for the Easter school seal for their state. We were to make Christmas pictures but no religious ones, a sort of silly stipulation if you ask me. I probably drew a Christmas tree. It was a proud day for our school when one of my classmates had his drawing selected to represent Arizona! We all knew he could draw well, but this was official recognition! I remember both things equally well–Christmas drawings with no Christ, and a classmate actually winning for the whole state.
Report comment to moderator
You live in a country where you are free to home school your children so you can protect them from being indoctrinated with evolutionism and secularism.
Do you appreciate the freedom you have to be ignorant and work at keeping your children in the same happy state?
No, you whine incessantly about oppressed you are.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name, I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with “oppression.” But doesn’t it strike even you as a little bit silly to name a holiday for someone (Christ, in this case), and then make sure He isn’t pictured anywhere in the celebration? It’s rather like throwing a birthday party for you but making sure not to invite you, and making sure guests don’t mention you. Or celebrating George Washington’s birthday and telling those who create the advertisement not to use his name, his picture, the country’s flag, or anything reflecting the founding of this country.
Surely you really do understand this, right?
Report comment to moderator
Anyone else see the irony in Random complaining about our complaints?
Report comment to moderator
All of us but Random himself, Make It Man.
Report comment to moderator
This is interesting in light of the fact that Obama has been bending over backwards to celebrate every Muslim holiday, to teach us all Arabic and make sure we know what a wonderful peaceful religion it is. So I am sure Islamic ornaments would be perfectly fine.
Report comment to moderator
Ornaments schnornaments, I’m having a hard time getting past them cutting down a 125 year old tree. That should be disconcerting no matter what your faith persuasion.
Report comment to moderator
But doesn’t it strike even you as a little bit silly to name a holiday for someone (Christ, in this case), and then make sure He isn’t pictured anywhere in the celebration?
Yes, it does strike me as silly. Almost as silly as Christmas being a “legal” holiday. Coming soon, persecution for celebrating Christmas, but perfectly acceptable for Christmas and Christmas trees and cards and presents to portray Christ.
From Brittanica:
The Arabs before Isl?m had hardly any art except poetry, which had been developed to full maturity and in which they took great pride. As with other forms of culture, the Muslim Arabs borrowed their art from Persia and Byzantium. Whatever elements the Arabs borrowed, however, they Isl?mized in a manner that fused them into a homogeneous spiritual-aesthetic complex. The most important principle governing art was aniconism; i.e., the religious prohibition of figurization and representation of living creatures. Underlying this prohibition is the assumption that God is the sole author of life and that a person who produces a likeness of a living being seeks to rival God. The tradition ascribed to the Prophet that a person who makes a picture of a living thing will be asked on the Day of Judgment to infuse life into it, whether historically genuine or not, doubtless represents the original attitude of Isl?m. In the Qur??n (3:49, 5:113), reflecting an account in a New Testament apocryphal work, it is counted among the miracles of Jesus that he made likenesses of birds from clay “by God’s order,” and, when he breathed into them, they became real birds, again, “by God’s order.”
Hence, in Isl?mic aniconism two considerations are fused together: (1) rejection of such images that might become idols (these may be images of anything) and (2) rejection of figures of living things. Plato and Plotinus, Greek philosophers, had also dismissed representative art as an “imitation of nature”; i.e., as something removed from reality. The Isl?mic attitude is more or less the same, with the added element of attributing to the artist a violation of the sanctity of the principle of life. The same explanation holds for the Qur??nic criticism of a certain kind of poetry, namely, free indulgence in extravagant image mongering: “They [poets] recklessly wander in every valley” (26:225).
It seems entirely likely there are even nuttier religious beliefs than the one I encounter here at wmb.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know where all the question marks come from in the passage I copied out of the encyclopedia. I guess that is how radical agnostics deface religious relics.
Report comment to moderator
Adios – I agree about the shame of cutting down the tree. It’s the same with whatever tree is chosen for Rockefeller Center in New York.
Report comment to moderator
I am a believer and am not anti-Christmas tree. I think decorated trees are beautiful and enjoy looking at them. However, attaching the name of Christ to a decorated tree does not make it Christian. Various “Christian” ornaments do not make it Christian either. Many, many people who put up Christmas trees at Christmas are not Christians and do not acknowledge/celebrate the birth of Christ. They just like the tradition. And that’s ok with me.
Report comment to moderator
I was getting some sort of blinking thing in my typing so decided to continue in a new post.
Continuing #24: I think, though, that the generally accepted idea is that the Christmas tree is part of the Christian’s celebration of Christmas. And, therefore, the kids should be able to make “Christian” ornaments.
Report comment to moderator
Adios,
Assuming the tree is part of a forest, it’s hardly “disconcerting” to me that a tree tall enough to be the nation’s Christmas tree will be older than I am. If it’s the only tree for miles around, don’t cut it down. If it’s one of many, well, I simply don’t see an issue here. This planet was given to us to use well, and cutting down a tree isn’t misuse of the forest.
Report comment to moderator
Recasting the meaning of our national Christmas tree reminds me of
attempts to rewrite our national history. Ethnic cleansing might be a not so distant cousin? Instead let tolerance prevail.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with those who say that the children should be free to design their ornaments in whatever way they choose, well, within reason. Certain things that would sincerely offend a majority of people should not be on there, but the children should not be banned from designing ornaments that might offend (PC-wise) a few people.
Report comment to moderator
Whenever Random Name talks about drama queens, I always wonder if he means the people who pretend to be offended by a Nativity Scene. (Have they ever been to an art museum?)
I don’t think it is being a drama queen to be upset that a tradition of many decades is being abandoned. It’s only normal and natural for people to feel that way.
Report comment to moderator
It’s all very ironic to me. I didn’t grow up with christmas. My daughter was given an eye exam when she was 3 and the opthamologist showed her a set of lines to resemble a christmas tree. She looked at it long and hard and said it was a lamp. I had to explain that we don’t have christmas trees, the doctor was shocked.
I never read anywhere in the Bible that we should celebrate Jesus’ birth every year, and certainly not with symbols borrowed from the pagans. I celebrate Passover each year, remembering what Jesus did for us.
Report comment to moderator
There isn’t one place in the Word of GOD that says we cannot celebrate Christ’s birth – and yes we don’t know the date.
Evergreens were used during saturnalia, that doesn’t mean that we mimic pagan rituals – pagans ate, killed for food, etc.
One of the Scriptures which is used to argue against tree’s is:
The Christmas tree didn’t exist at the time of Jeremiah’s writing. What Jeremiah was talking about in this passage is idolatry. He was condemning them of making idols – cutting down a tree, then shaping it into an image, decking it with silver and gold. then it became their god. When we are through with our Christmas tree’s we either throw them in the trash, (if they are real) or we store them in the box they came in for next Christmas.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I’m not saying you can’t celebrate Jesus’ birth if you want to. I am so glad that He chose to leave the glory of Heaven to come down and live among us and save us. I just don’t set apart a day to celebrate that like some of you do, that’s all.
Report comment to moderator
Contented-Joy – 31
Of course we can celebrate Jesus birth, there is no reason why we shouldn’t – Because you made a comment • “I never read anywhere in the Bible that we should celebrate Jesus’ birth every year, and certainly not with symbols borrowed from the pagans” • in post # 30 – hence the post I wrote in #31.
Too often people reveal their lack of knowledge by NOT knowing or understanding Jeremiah 10. Idols have been made from gold, silver, etc., for a long time, it has nothing to do with Christmas trees. The Jehovah’s Witnesses make a point…. condemning Christmas celebrations, birthday, mother’s day, Resurrection Sunday, Father’s day and a host of other celebrations which are not spoken of in the Word of GOD, but are MAN MADE RULES.
Report comment to moderator
What ever significance is or isn’t placed on this Christmas tree, the ban on religious ornaments was just another example of government refusing to acknowledge religion in this very public Public Square.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!