No Religious Displays in the Capitol Building This Year

If Bill O’Reilly spins it that way, it seems he will be correct.

It is reasonable to allow one religion, or several religions to display celebratory materials on public property for the precise reason you mention that O’Reilly will mention.

Nothing is a symbol of something.

Hemant, I would expect a little bit more of an intense evaluation from someone who claims to be an intellectual.

Actually, they haven’t chosen none; they still have a “Christmas tree”, which WAS also privately sponsored, but now is government-sponsored.

This isn’t really neutral, it’s another bogus example of “watered-down Christianity” == “neutral”.

Jon – You’re right, nothing is a symbol for something, but your “intense evaluation” is wrong. It’s a symbol for “we, the government, prefer to stay out of religious matters.”

“Nothing is a symbol of something.”

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Saying so makes it so.

Meh. I don’t think one can necessarily correlate a Christmas tree with Christ. It’s mostly just a place to put your stash of Holiday loot. How a person decorates it makes it a Christian symbol, don’t you think? As in, tons of Baby Jesus/crosses/three kings/mangers/etc. versus pretty multi-colored lights, glass balls and tinsel? Maybe they should just call it “The Holiday Season Icon” and not “Christmas Tree.” Would that make you feel better?

Can anybody point me to the Christian scripture that says we have to:

-Find a tree of the conifer family,
-Decorate this tree with lights and colourful stuff,
-Outdo Thy Neighbor with even more lights and colourfulness,
-Eat vulgair amounts of food?
Not in the bible? So, how is it christian then?

the people seeing a Christmas tree are going to be thinking that the town hall is promoting CHRISTmas.

I don’t see it, I think that that is taking it to an extreme. Really how many people that see a x-mass tree stop and go. hmmm these guys are promoting christ… usually there thinking “wow nice tree”.

So there is a symbol that represents a time of year with a diverse cultural background to it. To a christian it represents the birth of christ, to me it represents 17 years of hell at home,(well it did, but not any more..). I am sure as much as we are a diverse world it has as many diverse meanings as well.
Maybe it is one of those things in which we should not worry so much about what others think of it, but put it into perspective of what it should mean to us.

I always thought the decorated tree was anathema to christians, being a symbol of paganism and all.

If Bill O’Reilly spins it that way, it seems he will be correct.

How is it correct? Simply asserting that it is does not make it so. Consider this analogy. If I take some chocolate out of a box and put it in the fridge so it won’t melt in the summer, does this mean I am somehow magically saying the chocolate does not exist just because I’m putting the chocolate out of the box and into the fridge where it belongs? No, I am simply putting the chocolate into the fridge and putting the chocolate into the fridge says nothing whatsoever about whether or not the chocolate exists. Similarly, taking the religious icons out of the government building and putting them where they belong does not mean the government is saying they do not exist. They are simply putting the religious icons where they belong.

Richard P, ask a jew or a muslim if a christmas tree represents christianity, and I believe you’ll get a resounding “yes”.

Well I would guess that what it is, as a symbol would very from place to place.
As it happens I do know a few jews, and I know a few muslims. Now I am from Canada, and I guess most of us are a little less high strung, But none of the group that I know have a problem with the tree and what it represents. Sure, they know it has a christian heritage. But, it just doesn’t mean that to them. So I am sure that to some it represents evil religion, obviously this is true.
I just think to fuss about it is a waste of energy. You have the power to let it represent what ever you want.

You’re all missing the point about Christmas trees… Most people sit around them and open presents on Jesus’s birthday every year and have done for quite a long time now. See a Christmas tree, think of Christmas. A Christian holiday.

“government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”

If government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion, then shouldn’t it hold true that government shouldn’t prefer irreligion to religion?

Separation of church and state is not fully possible, for that reason. It would be nice to say “Can’t we all just get along?” but that is not really possible when two or more ideals are in direct conflict with one another and for one to be removed means the other takes hold.

If government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion, then shouldn’t it hold true that government shouldn’t prefer irreligion to religion?

Jon,

I think you’re conflating irreligion with a lack of government preference.

There are three states being addressed here. Government support of religion, government lacks a preference, government supports atheism.

You’re playing a bit of a shell game claiming that lack of support, the center position, is equal to government support of atheism. If Ron’s quote of Souter is accurate, he’s expressing a preferred government position of NEUTRALITY BETWEEN religion and irreligion.

You can claim that there are only two positions there. But you cannot simultaneously do so and use Souter’s quote to support it. For if there is only two positions, Souter’s sentence is made nonsensical.

If government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion, then shouldn’t it hold true that government shouldn’t prefer irreligion to religion?

If government preferred irreligion to religion, it would ban all displays of religious iconography everywhere, even on private property. As it is, that’s not happening, and never will. Having no religious symbols in a government building is not a preference for irreligion. In some places, it’s known as neutrality.

Separation of church and state is not fully possible, for that reason. It would be nice to say “Can’t we all just get along?” but that is not really possible when two or more ideals are in direct conflict with one another and for one to be removed means the other takes hold.

To quote a wise man, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”

Christmas, as a holiday, was stolen from paganism.

The tree is a symbol of paganism.

They ARE promoting religion by having a tree.

You’re consistently equivocating secular with atheist. They are not the same thing, or else you need to demonstrate that they are.

John – Everyone has a worldview. Some would say that everyone has a religion. Given that, it isn’t possible for the government to remain unbiased because whatever they do, it is pissing someone off or promoting another’s cause.

So, it might be nice if it was possible, but separation of church and state really isn’t fully possible. Given that, it would seem that in America, the unpopular view loses. At the moment, that might be the athiest viewpoint. In the future, that is likely to be the Christian viewpoint. And you will quickly forget how much you were whining about it if your viewpoint becomes more popular.

John – Everyone has a worldview. Some would say that everyone has a religion. Given that, it isn’t possible for the government to remain unbiased because whatever they do, it is pissing someone off or promoting another’s cause.

As thilina pointed out, if the government was promoting atheism by not having any religious icons up during Christians in government-owned buildings, why didn’t they take down the Christmas tree and keep up only the atheist sign? Answer the question.

Given that, it would seem that in America, the unpopular view loses. At the moment, that might be the athiest viewpoint. In the future, that is likely to be the Christian viewpoint. And you will quickly forget how much you were whining about it if your viewpoint becomes more popular.

Doesn’t your beliefs on politics sound an awful lot like Social Darwinism? Survival of the fittest and all that?

The decorated evergreen tree a ‘watered-down’ Christmas symbol? Nay, the Christians stole that from the pagans! Like they did the Yule log, the Easter bunny, the virgin giving birth to a god-man…

This is an epic win for Washington, though. For once I’m glad I live here. 😉

As for the holiday tree, in years past I’ve put up a tree for the winter solstice. I haven’t been a Christian for at least a decade now. Some years, I’ll go treeless, but other years, I’ll feel like decorating. Not only is it in part a celebration of tender times past when family was near and dear… it’s also for me a non-denominational celebration of light, sharing, giving, and all those other end-of-year feelings we’re supposed to feel during the holidays. So as a Christian, as a Wiccan, and as an Atheist I’ve put up a holiday tree. I see nothing wrong with maintaining the tradition in the capitol as long as there are no religious displays to go along with it.

Why is it that people think our government should be completely separate from any form of religion? The US Constitution protects our choice of religion by not allowing the government to choose a religion for us. It is our choice, not the government’s choice.

Part of this freedom is that not everyone is going to like it. It goes hand in hand with free speech. Unfortunately, it will most likely make someone mad.

I do not agree with all of the Freedom From Religion’s ideas. But, I think that the Freedom From Religion Foundation putting their plaque on display is what freedom of religion is all about. I fully support it, regardless of my beliefs. I think that they should be both on display.

@bønez_brigade

Our government is to be completely separate from any form of religion because the US Constitution establishes that precedent.

Where did that come from? The First Amendment? It has no words even close in meaning to the word “separate.”

Thomas Jefferson was the first to coin the words “Seperation of Church and State.” It was in reference to the Danbury Baptists whom wanted Jefferson to establish Christianity as an American religion. Jefferson said:

…legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State…

You can find more info on that letter here: Letter to Danbury Baptists Association

Many Supreme Court decisions cite this as a way to interpret the First Amendment. But they stop there and make no attempts to go any further.

Is that what Jefferson meant? A few Supreme Court judges would like you to believe so. When he wrote that letter, he had no idea of how much of a bearing it would have on this issue.

If Jefferson meant for our government to be completely separate, he would have done it that way. I think we all would agree on that. But he didn’t. In fact…

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House… were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary.

In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

Both of these can be found here for more reading… THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH: JEFFERSON AND MADISON
Can someone reasonably tell me why Jefferson AND Madison held church on government grounds if either of them meant for our government to have nothing to do with religion?

First, sorry for the delay in my response.

Next, where do you get that I mentioned or hinted at our Founding Fathers believing in a religious theocracy? I never said that. If you are referring to my examples, they only point out that the Founding Fathers did not believe in the words “separation of church and state” as touted by the anti-christian/anti-religious groups do.

If they did want the government to keep their hands completely out of religion, then why did Jefferson and Madison support religion on state grounds?

Jefferson’s name is most significant because it was his letter to the Danbury Baptists that the words “separation of church and state” come from. Jefferson was not trying to remove religion from the government, he was trying to keep religion from controlling the government.

As a side note, I do not totally agree with the FFRF. But, they do have their right to post the plaque.

I am not receiving new comments.. so I am trying a slightly different email address here… And again, sorry for the delay.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It means that literally, Congress cannot make a law. What type of law? Any law that establishes any religion as the government approved religion.

It does not say that a nativity scene cannot be put up on display on capitol grounds. It does not say that an atheist plaque cannot be put on display on capitol grounds. These are both fine examples of the “free exercise thereof.” It does say that Congress shall not make a law…”

In fact, Jefferson tried to include every aspect of other religions when he held church on government grounds. He did not establish a religion. In his roll as president, he honored all views, even those that he opposed.

It was his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association from which the words “Separation of Church and State” are derived from. Jefferson was opposed to the Danbury Baptists attempts in establishing our nation as a Christian nation. He wasn’t opposed to cutting religious ties. His own actions tell us that.

Everyone got a display except our friends, the Satanists. Yup, a giant goat head dripping with blood and black candles would probably get this tacky, non-biodegradable stuff yanked real quick.