Judge rids courthouse of Christmas tree so as not to offend Non-Christians

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Respect goes both ways....if they cannot respect the culture and traditions of the majority....why should their culture and traditions be respected?

Well, first off, "an eye for an eye" isn't a very Christian value.

Secondly, there was a time when Christians were the minority and were not tolerated by the Romans. At least we don't throw the Muslims to the lions, eh? Whether majority or minority, it shouldn't make a difference. I have heard "majority" and "minority" thrown around in this debate at work, between friends, on message boards and it irks me.

And lastly, who the hell is not respecting Christmas? A judge who wants her courtroom to be seen as completely 100% neutral? A jewish man who wanted jewish symbols in an airport ALONGSIDE the Christmas symbols? Who are we talking here?!?!?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, first off, "an eye for an eye" isn't a very Christian value.

Secondly, there was a time when Christians were the minority and were not tolerated by the Romans. At least we don't throw the Muslims to the lions, eh? Whether majority or minority, it shouldn't make a difference. I have heard "majority" and "minority" thrown around in this debate at work, between friends, on message boards and it irks me.

And lastly, who the hell is not respecting Christmas? A judge who wants her courtroom to be seen as completely 100% neutral? A jewish man who wanted jewish symbols in an airport ALONGSIDE the Christmas symbols? Who are we talking here?!?!?

An eye for an eye? It is really Christian like? Isn't it in the old Testimate? Regardless...this is not the issue....to obtain respect one must give respect. Not knowing the REAL reason as to why the judge made that decision I cannot speculate as to her justifications. It WAS NOT because others would feel that the courts were completely neutral, unless there was a complaint. It has not been a problem since confederation....so I believe something else is behind this issue.

Nice comparision about the lions.....and what is your point?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Azure: While the tree has nothing to do with the Bible, it was a tradition ADOPTED BY Christians.

Where? When? I'm still waiting for the link/evidence that will tell me that the Christmas tree is a 'Christian' symbol.

Easter eggs are not in the bible, yet kids paint
easter eggs in sunday school all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg

Read the history of the Easter egg...some of the versions suprise me...but I was certainly aware of the whole 'red easter eggs' suggested by a certain ruler at the time.

These are symbols and traditions that Christians have latched onto over time. You can't ignore that these traditions are related to a religious holiday. Well, I suppose you are proof that you CAN.

And the Christmas tree is not a religious symbol...it was adopted by pagan cultures...before Christianity had even come to them.

And nobody seems willing to address my question as to why the mall christmas trees are topped with the star of Bethlehem if the tree is not related to a religious holiday.

Must we go through this...

Here is a passage out of the Christian Bible...you tell me what it means..

For the customs of the people [are] vain: for [one] cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good

Reading through numerous links on the internet, it seems like many Christian people feel that the Christmas tree is in fact 'wrong' and should 'not' be used at Christmas.

From the wikipedia link..

With likely origins in European pre-Christian pagan cultures, the Christmas tree has gained an extensive history and become a common sight during the winter season in numerous cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree

BTW - the dreidel is not mentioned anywhere in Jewish tomes. Again, it is a tradition that the Jewish community added to Hanukkah. Are you going to claim that playing with the dreidel is *NOT* something that is related to a Jewish holiday?

No..I said that the Jewish religion does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God...therefore to them there is no significance of Jesus being born.

Why would they celebrate Christmas? Oh, right...there are other ways to celebrate Christmas...that are not 'Christian.'

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And lastly, who the hell is not respecting Christmas? A judge who wants her courtroom to be seen as completely 100% neutral? A jewish man who wanted jewish symbols in an airport ALONGSIDE the Christmas symbols? Who are we talking here?!?!?

The courtroom is not neutral because of a Christmas tree...but we still have to swear on the Bible before we say something?

Don't you think the judge is a bit hypocritical?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

The courtroom is not neutral because of a Christmas tree...but we still have to swear on the Bible before we say something? Don't you think the judge is a bit hypocritical?

No we don't. That was taken out. Same grounds. I mentioned that above.

Jolinar: I would hope that the days of the majority pushing around the minority are over and everyone can respect everyone else equally. Which is why I support "ALL or NOTHING". If the courtroom has NO religious symbols or any symbols that have came to be used for a specific religious holiday, then I am fine with it. If an airport puts up various religious symbolism on appropriate holidays then I am fine with it. If only one religion is celebrated, then I have a problem. Especially if people of all religions have paid for it (funded by taxes, paid out of student fees at a university, money gathered from all employees by the "social committee").

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

The Christmas tree is a symbol of secular society taking over Christmas.

Not really. The Christmas tree has been part of the Christian holiday for centuries. Long before the rise of secularism. It may not have started as a Christian tradition, but you can't deny that it's prominance around the world is mainly due to the spread of Christianity.

One thing is for sure, it was not started by secular societies. It was Pagan, and then Christian.

[Nicole]

I think people just let themselves get offended over the stupidest things and I can think of A LOT worse things in this world to be offended over than a stupid Christmas tree .. time for people to get over it. This is North America and Christmas is the biggest holiday of the year and many Christians and Non-Christians observe it, just for different reasons of course.

Last week I went to my dry cleaners and it is owned by a Sikh family and ya know what? .. They had a Christmas tree up, a wreath up (that said "Merry CHRISTMAS") and various other decorations. It made me like and respect them even more than I already did, to see that they can respect North American tradition when in fact they didn't have to acknowledge it at all. I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelash if their business wasn't decorated for the season, being that they're obviously non-christian.

[Devils'Advocate]

Uhhhh... this thread isn't about people being offended by a Christmas tree. It's about people being offended by the REMOVAL of a Christmas tree.

But I agree pretty much with your first sentence. I think people just let themselves get offended over the stupidest things and I can think of A LOT worse things in this world to be offended over than the lack of a stupid Christmas tree.. time for people to get over it.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Anyone else find humour in HOZ posting an article promoting the "wonderful privilege of building a pluralistic, multicultural society"?

Obviously not.

Nice to see people come together for a COMMON cause in spite of their differences as people TEND to do. Something tells me they would have done this even without Multiculturalism in it's present form.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Uhhhh... this thread isn't about people being offended by a Christmas tree. It's about people being offended by the REMOVAL of a Christmas tree.

But I agree pretty much with your first sentence. I think people just let themselves get offended over the stupidest things and I can think of A LOT worse things in this world to be offended over than the lack of a stupid Christmas tree.. time for people to get over it.

Actually, it the actions of some high brow elite doing something so as not to offend "others". That very action (and the pompous thinking behind it) ended up offending everyone.

[Nicole]

Yeah yeah .. presence of Christmas tree or lack of one - still stupid to get bent out of shape over either. This wouldn't be an issue if people ... a) had more respect for one another and their beliefs and traditions, b) people would stop being so damn grumpy and pessimistic and stop finding fault with any little thing, c) people would actually give of themselves once in awhile in service, b/c one thing I've noticed is that it really makes you a happier person, therefore less likely to b***h & whine & complain about everything and d) smile more - it goes a long way

[Azure]

And if people didn't see the need to find neutrality by removing so called 'religious' symbols from the courtroom.

I wonder if that Sikh family has a Christmas tree for religious reasons, Nicole.

[Sparks]

Devil's Advocate: If only one religion is celebrated, then I have a problem. Especially if people of all religions have paid for it

Where do you draw the line? There are probably thousands of different religions/beliefs in this country. And what about people who are atheist?

An eye for an eye? It is really Christian like? Isn't it in the old Testimate?

It's in the Old Testament, but the New Testament takes prescedence for Christians, and it says:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39, NRSV)

So, no, it's not Christian-like.
Man, I'm not even religious and I'm posting Bible verses. That one's a pet peeve of mine, though, since it's so often misinterpreted.

[Azure]

One thing Sparks...the eye for an eye thing relates to the law, while the New Testament saying relates individual experiance.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sparks

Where do you draw the line? There are probably thousands of different religions/beliefs in this country. And what about people who are atheist?

It's in the Old Testament, but the New Testament takes prescedence for Christians, and it says:
So, no, it's not Christian-like.
Man, I'm not even religious and I'm posting Bible verses. That one's a pet peeve of mine, though, since it's so often misinterpreted.

It's not the only one either. The Christian right in the U.S. has moved toward a far more judgemental and fundamentalist piety over the past 20 years. Their selective use of the bible to justify a hateful ideology that Christ would have found quite strange is shameful to say the least.

As for the issue of Christmas trees in courtrooms, I guess I don't care very much either way. But inasmuch as I do care, I would ask: what's the purpose of a Christmas tree in a courtroom anyway? To make it seem more festive? That doesn't seem appropriate. To make it smell nice? That's just silly.

It's a place of business--and whether people are offended by it is to me less important than the fact that putting a Christmas tree in a courtroom makes it seem like the break room at your office. It doesn't seem to me like it strikes the right tone for a courtroom. And if it really is a religious symbol, it has no place there.

One poster (can't remember who) commented that the jurisprudence of Canada and the U.S. is "based on Christian values." This is utter nonsense, especially in the case of the U.S., which was founded on secular enlightenment values, by men who were in a few cases not even Christians themselves. The fact that both models share certain dicta, such as "don't kill people" and "don't steal" does not mean that our law is based in Mosaic law--those are just good rules to build a society on. They're not specific to a single religious practice.

To me, this whole "war on Christmas controversy" is an argument that only one side cares about anyway. I say "Merry Christmas" to people all the time--not all of them are Christians, either. Not a single person has been offended yet. The war on Christmas is essentially an invention of Bill O'Reilly that is bleeding into the real world. If we all take a deep breath and relax, I'm pretty sure it will just go away.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Sparks

And what about people who are atheist?

I don't know about how to draw the line. The Ontario government seems to have been able to find a way.

As for the athiests, I've got a Festivus pole. Seriously.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Not really. The Christmas tree has been part of the Christian holiday for centuries. Long before the rise of secularism. It may not have started as a Christian tradition, but you can't deny that it's prominance around the world is mainly due to the spread of Christianity.

One thing is for sure, it was not started by secular societies. It was Pagan, and then Christian.

I think too many are making too much of who actually started the Christmas tree and for what purpose. If it was not Christian in its origin, I would wager it certainly is now since it is at that time of year that we see Christmas trees decorated. The fact that Christmas is now very commercialized does not really have anything to do with the tradition of the Christmas tree.

Now I will not profess to going to church every Sunday, although at one point in my life I did. BUT, in the church I did attend, we were taught why we observe various traditions about the Christmas tree. Now I am not saying these are absolute truths, I am merely saying, this is what our church taught about decorating the Christmas tree.

Traditionally, a star or an angel was placed at the top of a Christmas tree. The star is to guide us to Jesus, just like the star that the 3 wise men followed. And hence, the traditional Christmas carol, O Little Star of Bethlehem. For those who place an angel on top of the tree, there is the traditional Christmas carol, Angels we have Heard on High.

The lights on the tree are to remind us that the light of your life comes through your belief in Jesus.

And so on.

and please dont jump all over this saying, who knows if the story in the bible is true, who knows if there was a bright star in the sky, who knows if the prophet Jesus was really the son of God and so on. That really is neither here nor there when talking about the Christmas tree.

All I am saying is, in the household I grew up in, the Christmas tree was a Christian symbol, and the various decorations etc were symbolic and in reference to bible stories and traditional Christmas carols.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

That's all well and good, but it simply shows that the Christian religion has in the case of the Christmas tree co-opted a symbol of pre-Christian religious practice. In fact, there is no biblical evidence to support Christmas "trees" as a symbol (coniferous trees being rather scarce in the middle east), or even Dec. 25th as the day Christ was born. It's likely that the date was chosen to coincide with festivals of other religions. I'd say the likelihood that Christ was actually born on what we now call Dec. 25th is about 1 in 365.

[Azure]

Especially if you look at the seasons...and the fact that the Pope made Christmas on DEc 25th to not interfere with the Roman holidays.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's all well and good, but it simply shows that the Christian religion has in the case of the Christmas tree co-opted a symbol of pre-Christian religious practice. In fact, there is no biblical evidence to support Christmas "trees" as a symbol (coniferous trees being rather scarce in the middle east), or even Dec. 25th as the day Christ was born. It's likely that the date was chosen to coincide with festivals of other religions. I'd say the likelihood that Christ was actually born on what we now call Dec. 25th is about 1 in 365.

That is all well and good. But I dont think that anyone who says the Christmas tree is a symbol of Christianity ever said that physically coniferous trees had to grow in the Middle East, that Jesus had to be born on December 25, whatever.

It is simply a symbol. And as far as I am concerned, December 25 is symbolic too. I mean, so many calendars have existed over the years and still exist. As far as I am concerned, you can change Christmas to December 27 and decorate the Christmas tree 2 days later, it is all symbolic and today is usually associated with Christianity. It might be very commercialized now, but all of these things are simply symbolic. Certain faiths go along with the "outside wrappings" but the wrappings themselves are merely symbolic.

Why is there so much hoopla and fuss over things that are merely symbolic of someone's belief system and culture? No one is challenging your right to believe how you wish, to put on whatever window dressings you wish, all they are saying is the Christmas tree is usually a symbolic object usually associated with Christianity.

And even the symbolic ways of remembering change. In many cases, unless you actually attend church, the vast majority no longer know the traditional Christmas carols, but they do know what they now consider traditional Christmas songs. What am I saying? Christianity, thru the excesses of commercialization, is now being taken out of what we used to call the "traditional" Christmas.