Atheists on the prowl
Drudge had this story yesterday about atheists in Bellevue, Washington, and their opposition to a charitable endeavor in the Bellevue City Hall. The city, each December, erects an evergreen tree in City Hall, decorated with gold balls, gold ribbon, and requests for gifts from needy families. It is not even called a Christmas tree; it is called a "giving tree."
Even this, however, is too much for atheists Sidney and Jennifer Stock, who "complained [about the tree] after a city worker told them the tree makes him feel out of place, and if he says so, he fears for his job." According to the report, "[t]hey asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas, which is a Christian holiday.
"Stock says city hall should: 'Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed.'"
Well, isn't that interesting. More importantly, the Stocks are wrong from a legal perspective. The United States Congress has recognized Christmas as a national holiday, along with such secular holidays as New Year's Day, Washington's birthday, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day, to name a few. Further, in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court said the following about Christmas trees:
"The Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol. Although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas. Numerous Americans place Christmas trees in their homes without subscribing to Christian religious beliefs, and when the city's tree stands alone in front of the City-County Building, it is not considered an endorsement of Christian faith. Indeed, a 40-foot Christmas tree was one of the objects that validated the creche in Lynch. The widely accepted view of the Christmas tree as the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season serves to emphasize the secular component of the message communicated by other elements of an accompanying holiday display, including the Chanukah menorah."
While fir trees have been adopted as symbols of Christmas and can, to Christians, have religious meaning, there were no evergreens in or around the stable in Bethlehem, at least not any that are mentioned in the Scriptural accounts of Christ's birth. Displaying a Christmas, or a "giving," tree, in and of itself, carries no religious connotations whatsoever.
This is just one more in a long line of examples of a lack of tolerance toward Christians by those who claim, as the Stocks did, that they want everyone to feel welcome. Stock claims that he tries to "be aware of injustice and inequality when it affects anybody or everybody." Everyone, that is, except those who make him uncomfortable.
Even this, however, is too much for atheists Sidney and Jennifer Stock, who "complained [about the tree] after a city worker told them the tree makes him feel out of place, and if he says so, he fears for his job." According to the report, "[t]hey asked the city council to remove the tree because it represents Christmas, which is a Christian holiday.
"Stock says city hall should: 'Act as a place where everybody feels welcome. It is impossible for everybody's religious belief to be displayed and non-religious belief to be displayed, so therefore, no religious beliefs be displayed.'"
Well, isn't that interesting. More importantly, the Stocks are wrong from a legal perspective. The United States Congress has recognized Christmas as a national holiday, along with such secular holidays as New Year's Day, Washington's birthday, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day, to name a few. Further, in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court said the following about Christmas trees:
"The Christmas tree, unlike the menorah, is not itself a religious symbol. Although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas. Numerous Americans place Christmas trees in their homes without subscribing to Christian religious beliefs, and when the city's tree stands alone in front of the City-County Building, it is not considered an endorsement of Christian faith. Indeed, a 40-foot Christmas tree was one of the objects that validated the creche in Lynch. The widely accepted view of the Christmas tree as the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season serves to emphasize the secular component of the message communicated by other elements of an accompanying holiday display, including the Chanukah menorah."
While fir trees have been adopted as symbols of Christmas and can, to Christians, have religious meaning, there were no evergreens in or around the stable in Bethlehem, at least not any that are mentioned in the Scriptural accounts of Christ's birth. Displaying a Christmas, or a "giving," tree, in and of itself, carries no religious connotations whatsoever.
This is just one more in a long line of examples of a lack of tolerance toward Christians by those who claim, as the Stocks did, that they want everyone to feel welcome. Stock claims that he tries to "be aware of injustice and inequality when it affects anybody or everybody." Everyone, that is, except those who make him uncomfortable.
posted by Hal | 10:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home