The reaction by some of my fundamentalist and right-wing friends was predictable. They did not agree with the possibility of renaming the "Christmas" tree to "Holiday" tree, and everyone had a slightly different take on it.
I normally try to stay away from discussing politics and religion with friends, as my oldest and dearest friends and I have tacitly agreed to disagree. I love them all, but we have differing views, and for the most part I'm fine with that. However, given the general reaction to this poll, I couldn't hold my tongue.
The reactions I've seen so far are these:
1. This is the typical idea of a PC Liberal who doesn't know the definition of the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion)
2. Either use the Christmas tree for what it represents (the birth of Christ, I'm assuming) and call it by its rightful name, or don't have a Christmas tree at all.
3. Surprise that Obama would bother calling it a Holiday tree at all, rather than just a Tree, because the word "Holiday" comes from the term "holy day". The thrust of this argument was that try as some might to remove Christ from the population, He cannot be removed.
4. General reluctance over changing the nominal designation of the Christmas tree. No one would change other religious symbols (menorah, Kwanzaa symbology, etc), why change the Christmas tree?
It must be noted that the Christmas tree isn't Christian, at all. Christmas trees, mistletoe, yule logs, feasting on ham, etc., are of Germanic pagan, pre-Christian origin and symbolize LIFE and SURVIVAL during the coldest, darkest, most life-threatening season of the year. The customary use of a Christmas tree wasn't adopted until the 16th century in Germany. It first made an appearance within a few scattered households, and later was adopted by one German cathedral after another until it became widespread, then finally introduced to the British and American cultures in the 19th century. In fact, the Christmas tree historically has been controversial within Christianity because of its pagan origins.
Furthermore, this time of year isn't holy to only one faith, nor only to Christ. Changing the nominal designation of the tree within the White House does not "bastardize" a customary practice. Not only would such a change absolutely excercise the First Amendment, but makes this ancient symbol more accessible on a national scale to practitioners of ALL religions within the nation. Having a "Christmas" tree in the White House connotes a strictly Christian faith for our nation, and does not include the multitude of religious practices we each have the right to enjoy. A "Holiday" tree, on the other hand, would be a way of including EVERYONE in this nation at this special time of year, rather than excluding EVERYONE ELSE. A Holiday tree would be a symbol of unity and solidarity in our country: "We are one nation under God--no matter who your god is."
Isn't it true that the government represents all, not just one? All individuals, all practices, all faiths. Why not have an all-inclusive tree--at a time of common holy days--symbolic of that unity?
Really, anyone can have a Christmas tree--or a Holiday tree, call it what you will--to celebrate the holiday season. But the next time you put up a Christmas tree in your living room, remember that you are continuing an ancient pagan practice of the Reverence of Life during the hardest, most life-threatening season of the year. How awe-inspiring is that?
In the meantime, there's the probablility that all of this hullaballoo is the result of another hoax. Take a look at Holiday Tree Hooey at Factcheck.org
