'Holiday tree' deters lawsuits

So far all the arguments I've read on both sides regarding naming the decorated tree at the Capitol have missed the central point.

To call it a "Christmas tree" is to violate the ideal of separation of church and state, putting Wisconsin in the position of supporting, endorsing, or encouraging a particular religion, and therefore inviting lawsuits.

On the other hand, to call it a "Holiday tree" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) avoids the violation, thus allowing us to have our (holiday) cake and eat it, too.

— Lewy Olfson, Madison

It's a Christmas tree, but why is it here?

As much as I admire Annie Laurie Gaylor and support the work of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, I have to disagree with her on the Christmas tree in the state Capitol building. Calling it a "holiday tree" does nothing to make it inclusive. A Christmas tree by any other name is still a Christmas tree.

I agree with Rep. Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids. Let's call it what it is, a Christmas tree, a sectarian religious symbol. And now, having acknowledged that this is what it is, let's do the right thing, take it off government property and put it on private property where it rightly belongs.

Wishing everyone a merry Christmas, hHappy Hanukkah, meaningful Kwanzaa, joyous winter solstice, and any other holiday you like!

— Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, Madison

Tolerance should work both ways

It's a Christmas tree in the Capitol, not a holiday tree. What is wrong with all you "politically correct" people?

We moved to Madison in 1990, and my husband and I still can't forget our kindergarten son's "winter party" instead of a Christmas or a holiday party. It had blue decorations and snowflakes, and we weren't allowed to mention Christmas at all. Ridiculous! Tolerance works both ways, people. It is and always will be a Christmas tree. Get over yourselves.

— Sue Veeder, Madison

Time to call things what they really are

Dr. Seuss did not write,"How the Grinch stole the holiday." We don't sing "We wish you a merry holiday and a happy New Year." When I see an evergreen tree with decorations, I see a Christmas tree. I would never want to see a holiday menorah. It is time we starting calling things what they really are.

Calling this the "holiday season" and a decorated evergreen tree a "holiday tree" to include Hanukkah is misleading. It diminishes the significance of Christmas and falsely elevates the importance of Hanukkah.

While Christmas is one of the most significant holidays for Christians, Hanukkah is a relatively insignificant holiday for Jews. Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year), Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), and Pesach (Passover) are far more important than Hanukkah.

I have a confession. I have always enjoyed the Christmas season, even when they were Christmas trees, Christmas lights, Christmas parties and Christmas carols. I look forward to the sights, sounds and festivities of Christmas time. I don't need the impression that it includes my tradition, and labels do not fool me. Let's start calling things what they really are, and have a merry Christmas.

— Jonathan Davis, Fitchburg

Kudos to Schneider and Kleefisch on this

Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation chides Wisconsin lawmakers for "wasting their time debating such trivial issues" as what to call the giant tree in the Capitol this
time of year. If it's indeed such a trivial issue, why is Gaylor so adamant in her insistence that it not be called a Christmas tree?

Hats off to Reps. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, and Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, for the position they are taking on this issue. If it were left up to the majority of the citizens of Wisconsin, I know what that tree would be called. It's a Christmas tree.

— Gary E. Gundlach, Wauzeka

'Christmas' tree has little to do with faith

Our state representative needs to explore some history books about the actual origins of bringing in evergreen and of the word "holiday." Or how about the history of why Dec. 25 was chosen as the date for Christmas in the first place.

Faith should not have to be (and cannot be) proven by scientific experiments or by archeological evidence, and especially not by a fight against tolerance that masquerades as a fight against "political correctness."

I feel sorry for those who have so little strength that they cannot allow their faith in the same room with their cognitive dissonance.

In their fear, they yell loudly, hoping to convince themselves — and others — that their faith is stronger than fact, than history, than science, than tolerance. They try to bend these things to fit their faith, when they should need no such proof. Faith is faith, and faith is enough.

— Betsy Hambrick, Madison

We were founded on freedom of religion

I was delighted to read that Rep. Marlin Schneider wants to call the tree in the Capitol a Christmas tree again. My heart sank when all these changes started taking place about religion. We caroled along the streets years ago and people enjoyed listening and even gave us cookies.

Without any sign of religion around, we are just another Russia. A few people shouldn't be able to change what this country stood for all these years. They are free to go elsewhere to voice their ideas.

We must keep God in the open where he belongs. Let people believe as they wish, but not try to deprive our country of the freedom of religion it was founded upon.

I've heard more and more people voice their opinions about this and it makes me happy to know they are showing concern. A Merry Christmas to all, and God bless the United States.

— Vernita Pilsner, Madison

Issue not worth use of Legislature's time

Paraphrasing Rep. Marlin Schneider, "If it looks like an evergreen tree, and smells like an evergreen tree, and it's decorated like an evergreen tree, and it has presents under it like an evergreen tree, it's a decorated evergreen tree with presents under it."

Enough said — no one's offended. Please, state Legislature, spend your time on the critical issues facing our state and do your job.

— Joan Kraft, Madison

Enjoy the variety of religious symbols

I'm familiar with the Gaylor family's mission to remove "religion" from every aspect of public life. The Freedom from Religion Foundation will not be satisfied until we exist in a generic society without any reference to a higher power and refrain from public celebration of any holiday that embraces such.

I'm a Unitarian. Because of the blending of theologies that Unitarianism embraces, my interpretation of their message is the importance of being accepted.

I want Christmas trees as much as I want Menorahs and the acknowledgement of Kwanzaa. I don't want to live in a society where we have to tip-toe around in order to celebrate a holiday that the overwhelming majority of the population recognizes — Christmas.

I don't think the presence of a decorated tree so literally means the "birth of Christ" and the whole story implied. I believe the tree is a symbol, one to be shared with people of all faiths, something universal that can be related to on many levels.

I recall as a child in Unitarian Sunday school when one child would light a candle while the others would say in unison, "We light the light of a new idea. It is the light of our coming together. It is the light of our growing. To see new beauty, to know new things, to feel new love."

As an adult, this embodies the spirit of the Christmas season, the tree and its lights.

— Polly Dimmig, Cottage Grove

Gaylor's concern over 'exclusion' questioned

According to an article in the Nov. 29 State Journal, Annie Laurie Gaylor said that calling it a "Christmas" tree would offend nonreligious people and amount to a government endorsement of Christianity. She said "if you know you're excluding people by calling it a Christmas tree, why should you do that? It's impolite."

By her argument, calling the tree by some other name, or not putting one up, would offend a far greater number of people, the Christian majority in this country. I understand the Capitol building has numerous symbols of other religions on display, too, and most of us approve.

If calling it a Christmas tree is "impolite," isn't excluding the word "Christmas" impolite to far more people?

Poor Annie has every right to make atheism her religion, if she chooses, and believe that at her death she will become dirt, but I am sure most of us are happier in our faith.

— Herbert T. Johnson, Monroe

It marks Christmas, so it's a 'Christmas' tree

Christmas by any other name would not be Christmas. I am tired of having the minority tell the majority how to live. Annie Laurie Gaylor should hang some tinsel from her bitter tongue. The tree in the Capitol is a Christmas tree.

— Kay Prosser, Baraboo

When common sense suspended, be generic

The story this week of the British teacher in Sudan who was jailed for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad is a perfect example of the necessity of keeping religion and state separate.

As I listened to an impassioned man on the street calling for her execution over something many people find trivial, I thought of the intense young man asking the Republican candidates in this past week's debate if they believe every word in the Holy Bible. In this country, the Constitution states there is to be no religious test to hold public office.

My conclusion to this week's events: as a Christian I will gladly refer to the tree in the Capitol Rotunda as the "Holiday tree," and the tree in my living room as a "Christmas tree."

— Melissa Coons, Madison

Let's all call the tree whatever we wish

Who is Annie Laurie Gaylor to make the statement "lawmakers shouldn't waste their time debating such trivial issues?" If it weren't for her, there would be no debate.

As far as her saying a Christmas tree would offend nonreligious people and amount to government endorsement of Christianity, what does she think offends the Christians in this world? There are many who do want the Christmas tree called a Christmas tree. Why should a few people have their way with Christ being taken out of everything?

I'm a lot older than Gaylor and I say, let her call the Christmas tree whatever she wants, but also leave the rest of us who call it a "Christmas tree" to do the same. Don't allow one person to ruin things for the majority. If she learns complaining won't get her anywhere, she will finally stop it — just like a small child.

— Nellie J. Babler, Belleville

The majority rules: It's a 'Christmas' tree

Here is my intellectual, philosophical and theological treatise on the subject of the Capitol Christmas tree: We live in a democracy. Majority rules. Get over it.

— Lisa Doyle, Lodi

Tree is symbol of Christmas season only

The test of what to call the decorated fir tree in the Capitol Rotunda is actually quite straightforward: If Christians did not celebrate a day in December called Christmas (Christ's Mass), would anyone cut down a 35-foot balsam fir, haul it to Madison, put it inside the Capitol building and decorate it? Of course not.

It should be obvious to even the most politically correct that there wouldn't even be a decorated tree in the Capitol if not for Christmas. Therefore, we should use the correct adjective to describe that tree. It is a "Christmas tree."

— Gary Dikkers, Madison

Gaylor's intolerance is what's offensive

Contrary to Annie Laurie Gaylor's belief, placing a Christmas tree in the Capitol is not meant to offend or exclude anyone. It is a symbol of Christianity, but like it or not, there are an overwhelming number of Christians in Wisconsin. Celebrating their holy day publicly should be their legal right.

I think Gaylor's actions are not for "political correctness" or to avoid excluding others as she claims, but the result of her hatred of Christians. She proves that with her sign that calls religion "superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Is it politically correct to publicly lambaste religion just because you don't believe? If we must keep our religious beliefs to ourselves in public, shouldn't she? Isn't political correctness about accepting, respecting and tolerating others who are different than yourself?

All are welcome to view the Capitol Christmas tree. They need not believe in Christmas to see the beauty of the lights and talents of the children who filled it with ornaments. One need not convert to Christianity to gaze upon it. One can acknowledge and accept that it's an important symbol to others.

Other religions are welcome to include symbols of their beliefs in the Capitol, as is the Freedom from Religion Foundation. I hope Gaylor changes the FFRF sign to be a symbol of their beliefs and not an insult to others. After all, that's what a Christmas tree is. If you feel offended by it, it's the result of your own intolerance.

— Kelly Kornaus, Oregon

Traditional Christmas symbol will endure

Annie Laurie Gaylor is fighting a losing battle if she thinks she will abolish the "Christmas tree" in all public buildings.

The Christmas tree has been tradition since the 8th century in Germany, started by St. Boniface. Martin Luther introduced the "tree" by putting candles on it to signify the starry heavens from which Christ came. The custom was mainly confined to Germany during the 17th and 18th centuries, and then slowly spread over Europe to America.

"O Tannenbaum" was and still is a source of excitement. The Christmas tree not only became a tradition in many homes, but has been popular as a center of community observances of the season. The lighting of the Christmas tree in New York City is one example.

Wake up, Ms. Gaylor, and realize that the majority rules. We will have our Christmas tree, and if you do not wish to acknowledge it, no one is forcing you. Please stop trying to change tradition.

— Shirley Perlick, Lodi