Rockin' around the holiday tree

The separation of church and state was one of the best ideas the forefathers of this country ever had. It ensured that religion would never be a political force over the people and that all citizens would be able to worship whoever, whatever and however they chose. Yes, the forefathers had great foresight.

I'm willing to bet, though, that they never foresaw the mob of crackpots that has risen up recently to put the term "Christmas tree" out of use, suggesting "holiday tree" instead, and citing the separation of church and state as justification.

The idea at first seems a bit reminiscent of the "Christmas break" vs. "winter break" saga. Eons ago, "winter break" used to be called "Christmas break" on school calendars. Then, one day, it was decided that "Christmas break" was an exclusive term -- after all, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa also typically occurred over the break, and there were many who celebrated those holidays instead of or in conjunction with Christmas, and also some who celebrated no holidays whatsoever.

The eventual change to "winter break" still sparked a little controversy, but not much, because -- and this is the difference between then and now -- it had some logic behind it.

Our nation had diversified significantly, both culturally and religiously, since the days when it seemed almost everybody celebrated Christmas. Non-Christmas-celebrators wanted this change reflected. And although I wouldn't deem "winter" a particularly poignant reflection of diversity, I've got no problem with the decision.

And there are, I guess, probably fragments of this same logic tucked away in the deepest fissures of these "holiday tree" proponents' minds, but, boy, they have really missed the point this time around. They've hurried so quickly to the "take Christmas down a peg" part that they've completely forgotten they need the "represent alternatives" part too.

Aside from people that simply hate Christmas, it turns out a change to "holiday tree" would not represent any underrepresented groups. Excluding Arbor Day, Christmas is the only official holiday with an integral tree component, and it is certainly the only holiday where fir trees are erected and then decorated.

Put nondenominational decorations on them if you like (or no decorations at all) but you got the idea from the Christmas tradition.

How about the separation of church and state part, then? Perhaps that cause alone justifies the effort? Well, no: Christmas trees never did have any direct religious association -- they originally were used as symbols of life in celebration of the Winter Solstice. That is, Christmas Trees do not unify church and state in the first place.

It's pretty clear, then, that a change to "holiday tree" would be an empty one. Christmas trees are unique to Christmas, and they evoke no religious motives anyway -- commercial motives, more like. But, still, these protestors seem so vehement, is it really worth the effort to stymie their campaign?

On the surface, granted, the change doesn't appear to have any real significance, and this is actually how I perceived it at first -- a pointless change, but ultimately insignificant. While even now I am far less vehement in my opposition than the protesters have been in their proposition, a little contemplation changed my mind.

If "Christmas tree," becomes a politically incorrect expression, political correctness will have lost the small bit of integrity it still hangs onto. All those songs containing the phrase "Christmas tree" will eventually be construed as representative of intolerance. Withholding opposition would be allowing a few loudmouths obligate us to abandon a cherished colloquialism for no purpose. And we've already got too many purposeless obligations.