I just read an article titled “Keep the baby Jesus out of politics,” and while it brings up a few good points, I disagree with the majority of it. To begin with, stating that a pine tree has no claim to Christmas is like stating the Green Bay Packers have no claim to the G logo that is now property of, and synonymous with, the team. It is true that conifers played no part in the first Christmas. In fact, they first mention of them being part of the Christmas celebration was in the 16th century in Germany and Livonia. However, tradition makes up a large part of every event, and I mean every event, after its inaugural year. After five centuries of being the only light up decorated tree widely known to the Western World, I think its safe to say that yes, a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree. Calling something by its name whether its good or bad from your point of view is the proper thing to do. As stated in Harry Potter, “Fear of the name only increase fear of the thing itself.”
As I stated earlier, this scenario can be compared to the Green Bay Packers logo. Ask practically anyone in America what the “G” means, and I guarantee you the overwhelming majority will state it signifies the Packers. Ask the Packers organization itself and they will tell you so, while reminding you that if you use it without their authorization, they will relieve you of your spare change. However, the Packers were founded in 1919, yet the logo does not appear until 1961. Hmmm, so the green G isn’t the Packers logo? They won six world championships before the logo came, so it can’t possibly be a symbol of the team, right? The only difference between the two scenarios is that the word “religion,” such a dangerous word to use today, was mentioned in the first. Then again, I don’t know. Maybe if you asked a Bear’s fan they would only call it a sports logo, not the Packers logo.
The rest of the article hinges on the statement “separation of church and state.” I agree with this. The church should not rule the state, and the state should not rule the church. However, I have never seen a priest, bishop, or even the pope attempt to gain any political office. What many people fail to realize is that a politician with religious beliefs does not signify rule by the church. All beliefs have an origin. Whether a belief originated in or was adopted by a religion does not automatically make it a strictly religious belief. A politician runs for office based on his or her beliefs of how a country should be run. These beliefs are generally open to the public, and if the majority of the public also shares these beliefs, the politician is elected.
One example, though I will admit it is a little over the top, is the commandment “Though shalt not steal.” If the separation of church and state were as strict as the afore mentioned article claims it to be, then stealing should be legal in the United States. Once again, this is a drastically over done example, but I feel it gets my point across. Beliefs are what make a person, including politicians, who they are. It should matter where the beliefs come from. If a religious politician was elected, then guess what? The majority of his or her substituents voted for them, and that politician is representing them accordingly.
All in all, the main point I’m trying to make is, religion is a big part of who people are. If the majority of people share a belief then who cares what its origin is. And for crying out loud, call it what it is. Merry Christmas! Now go light your Christmas Tree.
Disagree? Please send all feeback to opinion@dailycardinal.com
