Washington (CNN) - An evergreen from Washington state is now in Washington, D.C. as workers prepare it to become the U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree.
House Speaker John Boehner will preside over the illumination the evening of December 3.The 79-year-old Engelmann spruce was selected in August, and for the past few weeks has been on a 5,000 mile goodwill trip from Colville National Forest, stopping at more than two dozen points along the way from the Pacific Northwest.
Finally, Monday morning, with a police escort, a tractor-trailer 103 feet long started up from an overnight parking space on the National Mall and made its way to the edge of the Capitol lawn as cameras covered the arrival.
A large construction crane was parked on the lawn itself to hoist and then move the 88-foot tree from the flatbed trailer to its display location at the West Front.
The tree will be decorated with about 10,000 lights and thousands of handcrafted ornaments from the people of Washington state.
Public donations and corporate sponsorships have covered about $400,000 of the expense, says Jeff Olson, president of "Choose Outdoors," a non-profit group that encourages people to enjoy public lands and other outside recreation.
Olson's group helped organize the fundraising to bring the tree to the U.S. Capitol, including Mack Truck's donation of two, brand-new, 18-wheelers. Alaska Airlines donated tickets to get the transport crews home to Washington State.
Riding along in the big rig for part of the way, Olson said the CB-radio brought "lots of comments about how much this is costing us as taxpayers," including some unkind speculation about certain politicians.
"So it's great, when you hear that, and you're able to respond 'this is paid for by the private sector,'" Olson said.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/25/us-capitol-christmas-tree-arrives-at-the-west-front/
Although this article does not get into the politics of religion and government, do you think there are any problems with the tree being displayed at the capitol?
This headline reminded me of Aragon's "holiday tree" that sparked so much debate and eventually led to its t.p.ing because there was no "holiday menorah".
Should the tree even spark any debate or just be left alone?
What are your opinions on the Christmas tree at the Capitol and should celebrating this holiday even be a government issue? What about menorahs?
9 comments:
As someone who's not super religious but still celebrates Christmas, I don't particularly mind the Christmas tree's presence at the Capitol. To me, it appears more like a cheerful testament to the holiday season rather than an obtrusive symbol of Christianity. Cristina refers to the sticky situation that is religion's place in politics and government; although technically I suppose this tree is trespassing a separation of church and state, I think that Christmas trees today have become commercial enough for this not to be a big deal.
It does make me a little sad, however, that this tree was cut down after 79 years.
There is a fine distinction between secularism and atheism. I personally could care less whether or not there is a tree, and I don't think anybody should make a fuss about it. If we truly were to argue the technicalities, then I would argue that the tree itself is not a religious symbol, even with the "Christmas" modifier preceding it. A Christmas tree today stands for so much more--holidays, cheer, giving, rampant consumerism (har har). And in fact, some historians would argue that these trees predate the origins of Christianity. It's also known that the church hasn't exactly embraced Christmas in the past few centuries. So no, I don't believe in the "War on Christams," nor do I believe that there should be one. Perhaps we should all be raging against the rampant consumerism, this mandate of buying and spending. Why, if anything, do we classify it as "holiday cheer"? Labels, anyone? So perhaps let's try to better ourselves in general, year round, before we try to pick a fight with a tree. I mean, come on, it already got chopped down once.
I don't believe the holiday tree to be a symbol of christianity in any way. I don't quite understand why certain individuals make such a fuss about it, I mean I guess it is kind of going against the separation clause so one could make a point to argue against it. But I don't see the big deal and perhaps that is because I enjoy that christmas spirit! I think it should be left alone.
Whoa, they spent 400,000 dollars on this christmass tree??? Even if it was fundraised that is a bunch of money.
As someone who does not celebrate Christmas, I think that there should not be a tree at the Capitol because no matter what anyone may call it, even a "Winter Community Tree," it is still a Christmas tree. While the majority of Americans do celebrate Christmas, I think that having a tree is disregarding all the other religious groups that are present in America. I think that it is ironic for a country who prides itself on separating Church and State to have a common symbol of a religious holiday. Also, many people mentioned adding a Menorah to represent the Jewish holiday, Chanukah. While, this does represent a smaller group of people, these two symbols still leave out several other minority groups that make up the American culture.
I agree with Keith that a holiday tree is in no way a symbol of Christianity. It's a tree that represents the happiness of the holidays and families getting together. As cheesy as that sounded my point is that there should in no way be a debate about religion when it comes to a Christmas tree. Just enjoy the holidays and stop worrying about trees. I laughed when I saw this because it reminded me of the tree at aragon and how that ended up.
Similar to Alexa, I think that Christmas trees, and Christmas in general, have become widely commercialized. Seeing that the Christmas tree's association with religion is so minor, I don't think that commotion over the tree is necessarily warranted. As Brandon mentioned, the "Christmas" modifier on the tree is rather inconsequential. The tree is largely accepted as a symbol of holiday cheer and it is truly commercialized for the sake of consumerism. At Union Square in the city, there is a Christmas tree in addition to a large menorah. Even if you have both of those, there will always be some group that is inevitably isolated because not everyone in the U.S. celebrates Christmas or Jewish holidays. Instead of focusing on the minute differences between various groups, people should spend their time uniting with others and just being loving and kind to others regardless of what demographic they may be associated with. Focusing on minutiae like this really destroys the whole holiday spirit and the spirit of coming together in general. I definitely think the tree should be left alone; there are more pressing things for the White House to address.
I don't think that a Christmas tree is a profoundly religious symbol. Plenty of people who aren't particularly religious celebrate Christmas. I would say, though, that Christmas trees have a cultural significance that does not apply to everyone. I think that for those who do not celebrate Christmas, the Christmas tree is linked to Christianity culturally if not religiously.
It has always irritated me that there seems to be this assumption that everyone celebrates Christmas. The assumption does not come from people so much as from commercialism. Wreaths cover stores. Christmas movies fill TV shows. From a commercialist standpoint this makes sense. The majority of people in America do celebrate Christmas. But not everybody does. And I sometimes feel rather left out around the holiday season.
Also, please let's be careful about throwing around words like "Christmas spirit." Christmas does not have the monopoly on charity or on giving gifts. I know that is not what is meant, but I have seen one too many movie saying that "Christmas is the season of giving." You can give anytime, anywhere, anyplace.
I love New Year's. Practically everyone celebrates New Year's at some time during the year. Maybe we can celebrate that instead. I don't think having a Menorah will solve the problem, because not everyone is either Jewish or Christian. How about just snowflakes? Or other winter-related decoration?
Has anyone seen the book tower in the library? I think it's supposed to be a Christmas tree, but it is actually pretty impressive. Hmm. Labels matter. Somehow "book tower" sounds better than "book Christmas tree." Strange, isn't it?
Thanks for the interesting post.
I think Christmas has become part of American culture, as a whole. Even if not everyone in America celebrates it, America itself celebrates it, as you can see on TV and in stores and everything commercial like that. I don't think this is necessarily a good or bad thing.
Although I don't personally care about Christmas symbols in school or at the White House, I understand why other people would. I think it differs though. I know people who don't celebrate Christmas and find the whole commercialism of it annoying. I also know people who don't celebrate the holiday but love Christmas.
I don't think the controversy over things like this will end, but I also don't think the White House will ever stop putting up all their Christmas trees. When I was younger, I remember watching the White House tour on TV, when they'd show off all of the Christmas trees in the White House. I think it's become a tradition that won't likely stop.
Personally, I do not like the idea of a "Christmas" tree in front of the Capitol, but I believe that it does not pose a significant legal question. In the case of Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court found that religious symbols which carry a primarily historic and/or social meaning rather than a religious one fall under an exception to the Lemon Test. In Van Orden, the Court found that the display of the Ten Commandments in front of the Texas Capitol was not unconstitutional. Since the Commandments are clearly much more religious in nature than the tree, I believe that the tree is constitutionally permissible.
Of course, the Van Orden decision has been, and probably will be, a point of major debate. Proponents argue that the decision provides for the preservation of historical and cultural artifacts which would otherwise be disallowed under the First Amendment. Opponents argue that this exception essentially says that if the government has been violating the First long enough, it becomes acceptable. What do you think?
Post a Comment